Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
A national Newspoll, conducted February 10–14 from a sample of 1,244, gave the Coalition a 51–49 lead, unchanged from the previous Newspoll, three weeks ago. Primary votes were 38% Coalition (down one), 31% Labor (steady), 12% Greens (steady), 7% One Nation (steady) and 12% for all Others (up one).
Newspoll previously used 2022 election preference flows, but they have adjusted for stronger One Nation preferences to the Coalition at the Queensland state election. The one-point drop in the Coalition’s primary vote suggests Labor gained, but preference flow changes affected the unchanged two-party estimate.
The graph below shows Labor’s two-party vote for each pollster’s headline voting intentions. As the pollsters are making adjustments to the 2022 election preference flows, I don’t think it’s useful anymore to use the 2022 flows as a baseline.
I’ve revised some of the previous iterations of Morgan and Essential so they use their headline respondent preferences. The four new polls included since the last federal update are Newspoll, the YouGov MRP below and last week’s Morgan and Redbridge polls.
All polls have the Coalition leading by about 51–49. Labor had a better result (a 50–50 tie) from Morgan two weeks ago, but last week it reverted to a Coalition lead. Labor can recover this lead by the election that is due by May, but they’re currently losing.
In Newspoll, Anthony Albanese’s net approval slid one point to a new low of -21, with 58% dissatisfied and 37% satisfied. Peter Dutton’s net approval was up one point to -10. Albanese led Dutton by 45–40 as better PM (44–41 previously).
The graph below shows Albanese’s deteriorating ratings in Newspoll. The plus signs mark the data and a smoothed line has been fitted.
In more bad news for Labor, just 34% said they deserved to be re-elected, while 53% said it’s time to give someone else a go.
YouGov has Coalition winning the most seats
YouGov conducted a national MRP poll (multi-level modelling with post-stratification) from January 22 to February 12 from an overall sample of over 40,000. MRP polls are used to estimate the outcome in each House of Representatives electorate using huge samples and modelling.
YouGov’s central forecast if the election were held now is the Coalition winning 73 of the 150 lower house seats, three short of a majority. Labor would win 66 seats, independents eight, the Greens one and others two. At lower limits, the Coalition could win 65 seats and Labor 59, while at higher limits the Coalition could win 80 and Labor 72.
The overall vote share in this MRP poll was 51.1–48.0 to the Coalition, a 3.2% swing to the Coalition since the 2022 election. Primary votes were 37.4% Coalition, 29.1% Labor, 12.7% Greens, 9.1% One Nation, 8.9% independents and 2.8% others.
YouGov is using respondent preferences for its MRP polls, and it has a weakening of flows to Labor from both Green and One Nation voters compared with 2022. By 2022 election preference flows, this poll would be 50.2–49.8 to Labor.
Labor’s primary vote is down most in its once safe working-class seats. But the Coalition is not likely to regain any of the seats taken by teal independents at the last election.
Redbridge and Morgan polls
The Poll Bludger reported last Tuesday that a national Redbridge poll, conducted February 3–7 from a sample of 1,013, gave the Coalition a 51.5–48.5 lead, a 1.5-point gain for the Coalition since early November. Primary votes were 40% Coalition (up two), 31% Labor (down three), 11% Greens (steady) and 18% for all Others (up one).
Coalition supporters were more firm in their voting intentions (61% solid, 34% soft) than Labor supporters (51% solid, 39% soft). The poll suggested a 9% two-party swing against Labor in the outer suburbs, but this would have been based on a small subsample. Other swings were 5% against Labor in inner and middle suburbs, no change in provincial cities and a 3% swing to Labor in rural areas.
The Poll Bludger reported Sunday that a Redbridge and Accent Research poll of 20 marginal seats, conducted February 4–11 from a total sample of 1,002, gave the Coalition a 52–48 lead (51–49 to Labor across these seats in 2022). Primary votes were 43% Coalition, 33% Labor, 12% Greens and 12% for all Others.
A national Morgan poll, conducted February 3–9 from a sample of 1,688, gave the Coalition a 51.5–48.5 lead by headline respondent preferences, a 1.5-point gain for the Coalition since the January 27 to February 2 poll.
Primary votes were 40.5% Coalition (up two), 29% Labor (down one), 11% Greens (down 0.5), 4% One Nation (down 1.5), 9.5% independents (down one) and 6% others (up two). This is the lowest support for the Greens in this poll since November 2022. By 2022 election preference flows, the Coalition led by 51.5–48.5, a two-point gain for the Coalition.
UAP can’t register for election
Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party (UAP) voluntarily deregistered during this term, and were unable to re-register under this name. Palmer and the UAP’s only federal parliamentarian, Victorian Senator Ralph Babet, challenged this law, but the High Court last Wednesday denied the challenge.
Babet was elected in 2022 and won’t be up for election as his six-year term expires in June 2028. The coming election will be a normal one for the full House and half the Senate, not a double dissolution where all senators are up for election.
The UAP could still register under a different name, but their registration would need to be completed before writs are issued for the election. If the election is on May 17, the latest possible date, writs would need to be issued by April 14.
Victorian Labor retains Werribee at byelection
I previously covered the February 8 Victorian state byelections for Werribee and Prahran. On the election night count, Prahran was a Liberal gain from the Greens, with Labor ahead in Werribee but not certain to hold.
Over 2,000 additional postals have been counted in Werribee, and Labor increased its lead, and now leads by 50.8–49.2 against the Liberals, a 10.2% swing to the Liberals since the November 2022 state election.
Left-wing parties will do badly in Germany
I covered next Sunday’s German election for The Poll Bludger on Saturday. The conservative CDU/CSU and far-right AfD are the top two parties in the polls, with the governing centre-left SPD and the Greens trailing.
In Canada, Mark Carney is almost certain to be elected Liberal leader, replacing Justin Trudeau. In recent weeks, the Liberals have closed the gap on the Conservatives, but still trail by a large margin. US and UK polls were also covered.
Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Indonesia’s TVOne launched an AI news presenter in 2023.T.J. Thomson
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has taken off at lightning speed in the past couple of years, creating disruption in many industries. Newsrooms are no exception.
A new report published today finds that news audiences and journalists alike are concerned about how news organisations are – and could be – using generative AI such as chatbots, image, audio and video generators, and similar tools.
The report draws on three years of interviews and focus group research into generative AI and journalism in Australia and six other countries (United States, United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, Germany and France).
Only 25% of our news audience participants were confident they had encountered generative AI in journalism. About 50% were unsure or suspected they had.
This suggests a potential lack of transparency from news organisations when they use generative AI. It could also reflect a lack of trust between news outlets and audiences.
Who or what makes your news – and how – matters for a host of reasons.
Some outlets tend to use more or fewer sources, for example. Or use certain kinds of sources – such as politicians or experts – more than others.
Some outlets under-represent or misrepresent parts of the community. This is sometimes because the news outlet’s staff themselves aren’t representative of their audience.
Carelessly using AI to produce or edit journalism can reproduce some of these inequalities.
Our report identifies dozens of ways journalists and news organisations can use generative AI. It also summarises how comfortable news audiences are with each.
The news audiences we spoke to overall felt most comfortable with journalists using AI for behind-the-scenes tasks rather than for editing and creating. These include using AI to transcribe an interview or to provide ideas on how to cover a topic.
But comfort is highly dependent on context. Audiences were quite comfortable with some editing and creating tasks when the perceived risks were lower.
The problem – and opportunity
Generative AI can be used in just about every part of journalism.
For example, a photographer could cover an event. Then, a generative AI tool could select what it “thinks” are the best images, edit the images to optimise them, and add keywords to each.
Computer software can try to recognise objects in images and add keywords, leading to potentially more efficient image processing workflows. Elise Racine/Better Images of AI/Moon over Fields, CC BY
These might seem like relatively harmless applications. But what if the AI identifies something or someone incorrectly, and these keywords lead to mis-identifications in the photo captions? What if the criteria humans think make “good” images are different to what a computer might think? These criteria may also change over time or in different contexts.
Even something as simple as lightening or darkening an image can cause a furore when politics are involved.
AI can also make things up completely. Images can appear photorealistic but show things that never happened. Videos can be entirely generated with AI, or edited with AI to change their context.
Generative AI is also frequently used for writing headlines or summarising articles. These sound like helpful applications for time-poor individuals, but some news outlets are using AI to rip off others’ content.
AI-generated news alerts have also gotten the facts wrong. As an example, Apple recently suspended its automatically generated news notification feature. It did this after the feature falsely claimed US murder suspect Luigi Mangione had killed himself, with the source attributed as the BBC.
What do people think about journalists using AI?
Our research found news audiences seem to be more comfortable with journalists using AI for certain tasks when they themselves have used it for similar purposes.
For example, the people interviewed were largely comfortable with journalists using AI to blur parts of an image. Our participants said they used similar tools on video conferencing apps or when using the “portrait” mode on smartphones.
Likewise, when you insert an image into popular word processing or presentation software, it might automatically create a written description of the image for people with vision impairments. Those who’d previously encountered such AI descriptions of images felt more comfortable with journalists using AI to add keywords to media.
Popular word processing and presentation software can automatically generate alt-text descriptions for images that are inserted into documents or presentations. T.J. Thomson
The most frequent way our participants encountered generative AI in journalism was when journalists reported on AI content that had gone viral.
For example, when an AI-generated image purported to show Princes William and Harry embracing at King Charles’s coronation, news outlets reported on this false image.
Our news audience participants also saw notices that AI had been used to write, edit or translate news articles. They saw AI-generated images accompanying some of these. This is a popular approach at The Daily Telegraph, which uses AI-generated images to illustrate many of its opinion columns.
The Daily Telegraph frequently turns to generative AI to illustrate its opinion columns, sometimes generating more photorealistic illustrations and sometimes less photorealistic ones. T.J. Thomson
Overall, our participants felt most comfortable with journalists using AI for brainstorming or for enriching already created media. This was followed by using AI for editing and creating. But comfort depends heavily on the specific use.
Most of our participants were comfortable with turning to AI to create icons for an infographic. But they were quite uncomfortable with the idea of an AI avatar presenting the news, for example.
On the editing front, a majority of our participants were comfortable with using AI to animate historical images, like this one. AI can be used to “enliven” an otherwise static image in the hopes of attracting viewer interest and engagement.
A historical photograph from the State Library of Western Australia’s collection has been animated with AI (a tool called Runway) to introduce motion to the still image. T.J. Thomson
Your role as an audience member
If you’re unsure if or how journalists are using AI, look for a policy or explainer from the news outlet on the topic. If you can’t find one, consider asking the outlet to develop and publish a policy.
Consider supporting media outlets that use AI to complement and support – rather than replace – human labour.
Before making decisions, consider the past trustworthiness of the journalist or outlet in question, and what the evidence says.
T.J. Thomson receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is an affiliate with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making & Society.
Michelle Riedlinger receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada’s Global Journalism Innovation Lab. She is an affiliate with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making & Society.
Phoebe Matich receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a post-doctoral research fellow within the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society.
Ryan J. Thomas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Most of us would do anything for our pets if they become unwell. But just as caring for a human loved one can come at great personal cost, a growing body of research shows that’s also true for many pet owners looking after a seriously ill pet.
One 2017 study looked at how people with healthy pets fared compared to those caring for pets with serious diseases.
It found many of those looking after seriously ill animals felt they didn’t have enough time for themselves due to the time they had to spend with their pet.
Compared to owners of healthy pets, those caring for unwell pets experienced:
greater burden, stress and symptoms of depression/anxiety, as well as poorer quality of life.
Our 2023 research into experiences of people looking after older dogs showed similarly concerning results.
We surveyed people with dogs eight years or older. Some of these dogs were living with canine cognitive dysfunction, a form of dementia similar to Alzheimer’s disease in people.
Out of the 637 respondents to our survey, 16% had a high burden of care likely to be associated with negative psychological, physical and financial outcomes.
One respondent told us:
My partner and I cannot leave him home alone for long at all […] I worry about [my pet’s] quality of life. I feel my partner is really struggling with [my pet’s] deterioration and when the time comes for euthanasia I know it will be me forcing the issue. I feel constant anxiety about this decision looming.
A higher burden of care was associated with the dog having more severe canine cognitive dysfunction, pet owners who were aged between 25 and 44 years, and those who lived alone.
This makes sense, because people who live alone don’t have another person to support or help them. The most difficult dog behaviours people reported were night-time disturbances and barking.
Burden of care in other situations
Any significant pet disease or disability is likely to be associated with stress in their caregivers.
Even behavioural problems in dogs, such as aggression or separation-related disorder, have been associated with clinically significant strain in more than 68% of people.
Most of the research has been done in dogs, but owners of ill cats also have a higher burden, although it appears less than owners of an ill dog.
We previously showed that a third of owners of cats with epilepsy are likely to be experiencing high levels of carer stress or strain.
These problems were worse in owners who did not feel supported by their vet. For example, they may feel they’re being rushed through appointments, or that their concerns are being dismissed.
Pet owners more likely to feel this caregiver stress included those who were younger than 55, and those whose cat had uncontrolled seizures.
Strong emotions and complex needs
The burden of caring for an unwell pet is not well recognised, even by vets.
People suffering this kind of carer stress are likely to require more time in consultations at the vet’s office, visit more frequently, and become angry and emotional.
From a vet’s perspective, clients with such strong emotions and complex needs can be challenging.
People suffering a high burden of care are likely to require more time in consultations at the vet. Beach Creatives/Shutterstock
How can you get help?
If you or somebody you know is struggling with caring for a seriously ill pet, find a vet you trust and feel comfortable with. If you can tell them what you are struggling with, the vet may be able to provide some support.
Call on your village! Ask friends and family for help to provide you with respite. We often do it when we first bring a new puppy or kitten home, but don’t think it’s OK to ask for help when they’re sick or ageing and need more care.
Know that it’s OK to sometimes feel frustrated, overwhelmed, or even resentful towards your pet. It doesn’t mean you don’t love them. It means providing this level of care is hard.
I think that most of the people are not aware of the benefits of living with the cat with special needs.
Supporting the human-animal bond means supporting both humans and animals. We’re all better off when we recognise and support people struggling with caring for their pets.
If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636.
Susan Hazel has received funding from the Waltham Foundation and is affiliated with the Dog and Cat Management Board of South Australia, and the RSPCA South Australia.
Tracey Taylor receives funding from the Waltham Foundation.
When the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) was established in 2013, one of its driving aims was to make disability services and support systems fairer.
However, our new research shows significant inequalities remain, with some groups finding it much harder than others to be deemed eligible and access a funding plan.
So, what can we do to ensure these reforms don’t further embed existing inequalities? Here’s what we found.
Inequalities in scheme access
To receive funding from the NDIS, participants are required to demonstrate their eligibility.
We wanted to explore whether decisions about eligibility were leading to inequalities in who could access and use NDIS funding.
Our study looked at the individual NDIS applications of 485,676 people aged seven or older, made between 2016 and 2022, to see if they were deemed eligible.
We then compared differences in eligibility rates between groups, considering:
age (applicants 55 or older versus those under 55)
gender (women and girls versus other applicants)
socioeconomic disadvantage (those from the poorest 30% of areas versus all other areas).
Who is deemed ineligible?
We found some groups are more likely to be rejected from the scheme than others: women and girls, people aged 55 and over, and those who live in disadvantaged areas.
Within these groups, eligibility rates also vary.
For example, people with intellectual disability, autism, and brain injury or stroke were very likely to be deemed eligible, regardless of their age, gender or socioeconomic disadvantage (900 or more were accepted per 1,000 applicants).
However, people with physical disability and psychosocial disability (disabilities that can arise from a mental health issue, such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia) were significantly more likely to be rejected.
This was true across groups, but particularly evident among women and girls.
We compared eligibility rates within every 1,000 applications made by women and girls versus men and boys.
Among those who had physical disability, 145 more women and girls were rejected, compared to men and boys.
Among those with psychosocial disability, 83 more applications were deemed ineligible for every 1,000 applications made by women, compared to men.
Age was also a factor. Older Australians with a physical disability had 235 fewer approvals per 1,000 applications than those with physical disability under 55.
Inequalities are more pronounced among those trying to prove eligibility for the scheme.
Once accepted into the NDIS, our research found women and girls, and people living in poorer areas, received similar amounts of funding as men and boys, and those living in better-off areas.
This budget is based on what the participant wants to achieve in everyday life and their support needs relating to their disabilities.
However once people receive and are using plans, we then see some differences in how much these people are able to spend. This relates to factors such as the availability of services in an area or whether culturally safe supports are available.
We found that women with psychosocial disability spent more than men with similar sized budgets.
This result could reflect that women with psychosocial disability on the NDIS have higher support needs than men.
It could be that it is harder for women to get onto the scheme in the first place, so those who are deemed eligible have more significant disability than men.
But we need more research to unpack this further.
Why do we see these inequalities?
In the early days of the NDIS, to help fast-track applications, the National Disability Insurance Agency (which runs the NDIS) specified a list of diagnoses closely related to disability.
Known as list A conditions, people with these diagnoses are automatically eligible for the NDIS.
Disabilities likely to be associated with a list A diagnosis include level 2 or 3 autism (requiring substantial or very substantial support) and intellectual disability.
However some people who could have permanent and significant disability, may have a diagnosis not on list A, such as Down syndrome and motor neurone disease. They must provide a broader range of evidence on the impact of their disability to be eligible.
If they face other challenges – such as socioeconomic disadvantage – it may be harder for them to collect this evidence. For example, they may not be able to afford private health care that would help support their application.
This might explain why people who do not have a list A diagnosis are less likely to prove their eligibility for the scheme.
Where next for the scheme?
Following recommendations from an independent review into the NDIS, the National Disability Insurance Agency is currently making changes to how it assesses eligibility.
One of the changes suggested is removing list A classifications altogether.
Instead, the agency will use a suite of functional assessment tools. These are still in the process of being designed, but they are one way to assess a person’s ability to perform everyday tasks and identify the level of support they require.
This approach aims to assess more objectively and fairly how much someone is impacted by their disability.
However, there are longstanding critiques of these tools. These include concerns they are not safe for minority groups, such as those with a culturally or linguistically diverse background, LGBTQIA+ people, and First Nations applicants.
Our new research demonstrates how and why some inequalities arise. We should put this understanding front-and-centre in any changes to the NDIS.
Most importantly, we should make sure reforms are co-designed with a broad range of different groups, to ensure we don’t perpetuate old inequalities or introduce new ones.
George has conducted commissioned work for the Australian Department of Social Services (NDIS service use), the Victorian Department of Families Fairness and Housing (inequalities in NDIS service use), and the Queensland Department of Seniors, Disability Services, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships (NDIS service use in regional and remote Queensland).
Alexandra Devine receives funding from the NHMRC.
Anne Kavanagh receives funding from the ARC, NHMRC, MRFF, MS Australia and the Australian government.
Helen Dickinson receives funding from ARC, NHMRC and Department of Social Services.
Yi Yang has conducted commissioned work for the Australian Department of Social Services (inequalities in NDIS service use), the Victorian Department of Families Fairness and Housing (inequalities in NDIS service use), and the Queensland Department of Seniors, Disability Services, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships (inequalities in NDIS service use in regional and remote Queensland).
New Zealand’s smokefree law was hailed around the world for creating a smokefree generation that would have lifelong protection from smoking’s harms.
The smokefree generation would have ended sales of tobacco products to anyone born on or after a specific date, thus gradually phasing out smoking. This new approach goes beyond age restriction policies (such as R18 or R21), which may imply smoking is “safe” once people reach the designated age.
However, the coalition government moved swiftly to repeal the smokefree generation measure. That decision did not reflect attitudes towards the policy from young people and the general public.
In an earlier in-depth study, we found young people strongly supported measures restricting their access to tobacco because they understood this policy would protect them from becoming addicted to smoking. Surveys also showed strong support for the smokefree generation policy from young people, the general public and people who smoke.
NZ falls further behind international best practice
As New Zealand went backwards, other jurisdictions, including the UK and several US towns, have proposed or taken more progressive approaches. Recent policies include vapes and other nicotine products, alongside smoked tobacco, and aim to create a nicotine-free generation.
Because many more young people in New Zealand vape than smoke, we were interested in how they viewed a nicotine-free generation policy.
On the one hand, they might support an approach that reduces the shame, stress and stigma nicotine addiction causes. On the other, they might accept arguments tobacco companies have made, claiming birth-year measures remove young people’s freedoms.
We talked in-depth with 20 young people who assessed themselves as addicted to vaping. We asked them to imagine a nicotine-free generation policy was in place and applied to them, before probing how they interpreted and rationalised this approach.
Our participants thought a nicotine-free generation policy would bring several wide-ranging benefits. They outlined personal benefits, such as increased fitness, better overall health and fewer financial concerns.
Participants also envisaged societal benefits, including reduced pollution (from littered disposable vapes), fewer disputes among young people (less fighting over vapes) and a less pressured health system.
Nearly all participants wanted to quit vaping. Several had tried to stop but relapsed. Easy access to vaping products and vaping’s ubiquity made many feel that quitting was impossible.
Some felt targeted by marketers and unable to resist the pro-vaping environment that surrounded them. One person said vape shops were designed to attract younger people.
There’s vape stores everywhere. It’s insane […] they’re always bright[ly] colour[ed] so you can see them.
These feelings of powerlessness led several to view government regulation as the only way to protect young people from vaping. Rather than wanting to assert “choices” and “freedoms”, many of the people who talked with us felt they would be better off if this option simply did not exist.
One participant explained:
Although it is a choice […] it’s never going to be a positive choice. I wouldn’t mind it being taken away because I know it would be for my benefit […] it wouldn’t be a negative thing.
Participants wanted a better future where younger generations did not face the challenges they had found overwhelming.
The generation below me […] I don’t want them to go through [negative] health effects [and] experience that kind of thing.
Nonetheless, a very small minority argued that young people should find out about risks themselves. One person argued:
It’s people’s lives and they should be able to pick what they do […] Let them find out for themselves.
Participants noted concerns about how a nicotine-free generation policy would be implemented and questioned whether retailers would respect this measure. Some thought parents or older siblings would supply vapes, as some already did. Others expected an illicit market could evolve.
However, participants suggested several solutions they thought could address these challenges, including not normalising vaping, reducing retail outlet numbers and vape product marketing, increasing compliance monitoring and providing better support to help people quit vaping.
Time for political leadership
Our findings suggest it is time to discuss whether Aotearoa New Zealand should return to more progressive smokefree policies that recognise how the rapidly evolving nicotine market has undermined young people’s wellbeing.
The current political emphasis on individual responsibility ignores young people’s calls for policies that remove harmful “choices”. It does not address earlier evidence that suggests governments have a responsibility to protect young people from harms.
Reducing the ubiquity and appeal of vaping products should be an urgent policy priority for 2025.
We acknowledge the excellent work undertaken by Renee Hosking, a summer scholarship student with the ASPIRE Aotearoa Centre.
Janet Hoek receives funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand, Royal Society Marsden Fund, NZ Cancer Society and NZ Heart Foundation. She is a member of the Health Coalition Aotearoa’s smokefree expert advisory group, a senior editor at Tobacco Control (honorarium paid) and she serves or has served on several government, NGO and community advisory groups.
Lani Teddy receives funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand. She is affiliated with ASPIRE Aotearoa whose members undertake research to inform tobacco policy.
Anna DeMello does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University
The dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) is a serious blow to the soft power of the United States and disastrous for many poor countries where it helps provide humanitarian, health and educational services.
One country whose citizens will bear the brunt of it is Afghanistan, under the misogynistic and draconian rule of the Taliban.
According to United Nations reports, more than half of Afghanistan’s estimated 40 million population is dependent on international handouts for their survival. Most of the remaining barely earn enough to exist.
USAID has played a critical part in alleviating the suffering of Afhghans since the hasty retreat of the US and its allies from the country and the return of the Taliban to power in mid-2021.
Since then, the United States has been the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, amounting to US$3.71 billion (A$5.8 billion), channelled through UN agencies and other international organisations. USAID has been responsible for delivering a large proportion of it.
The effects are already being felt. A major midwifery program has closed, while “secret schools” for girls and the American University of Afghanistan has suspended classes.
US aid, along with help from other donors, has also been critical in keeping mass starvation at bay.
Aid propping up the Taliban
Indeed, not all the aid has directly been delivered to the needy. The Taliban have creamed off a portion of it in the process of permitting and supervising its delivery.
As widely reported, the group has indirectly received some US$40 million (A$63 million) a week of donor funds. The United Nations says it’s unavoidable that some money makes its way to Afghanistan’s central bank, which is under the control of the Taliban.
This aid money, together with US$7 billion (A$11 billion) worth of light and heavy arms left behind by the US and its allies, has been crucial in enabling the Taliban to enforce its extremist rule, despite lacking domestic and international legitimacy.
US President Donald Trump’s objection to the flow of any American aid to the Taliban is well placed. He has criticised the Biden administration for its chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and failure to curtail the indirect benefits of American aid to the group.
Further, National Security Advisor Michael Waltz and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who both served in Afghanistan, have vowed to continue to fight terrorism around the world. Waltz believes terrorist groups are regrouping in Afghanistan under the Taliban and the Pentagon may need to send US troops back there.
A halt to any aid that can advantage the Taliban is absolutely imperative. Countering the group is vital to combating violent extremism and terrorism.
Afghans still desperately need aid
However, this effort needs to be managed in ways that do not deprive the needy people of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan’s economy, industries, reconstruction projects and work opportunities have virtually collapsed, while many schools have been closed or transformed into religious institutions.
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) estimates that in the last three years, Afghanistan’s economy has contracted by 27%, with staggeringly high unemployment and inflation.
Living conditions are so bad that some families are selling their children in order to feed the rest of the family.
No section of the society is in more desperate need than girls and women, who have been stripped of all their basic rights to education, work and public life. They are not even allowed to speak in public or pray outside the four walls of their homes. As put by actor Meryl Streep, a cat has more freedom than women in Afghanistan.
The disembowelling of USAID will have far-reaching consequences for the people of Afghanistan.
If the Trump administration wants to achieve its anti-Taliban objectives, it needs a two-pronged policy approach:
identify new ways to continue humanitarian assistance to the people of Afghanistan in ways that don’t benefit the Taliban
increase pressure on the Taliban by strictly enforcing international sanctions and maintaining its isolation on the international stage.
The suspension of American aid has already resulted in a devaluation of the Afghani currency. This has prompted the Taliban to impose severe restrictions on the transfer of dollars out of the country.
Some analysts predict that if the economy continues to worsen, it will impact the Taliban’s ability to govern.
In turn, this could strengthen civil and armed opposition groups – including the women’s Purple Saturday movement, which stands for a free and legitimately governed Afghanistan. These groups have increasingly become active in different parts of the country.
Amin Saikal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Abdul Aziz, Lecturer in Media and Communication Studies, School of Arts and Social Sciences, Monash University
Because of the search engine’s enormous scale, its outputs can have outsized effects. And, while Google’s search results are shaped by ostensibly neutral rules and processes, research has shown these algorithms often produce biased results.
This kind of misinformation has been implicated in several riots and violent incidents in Bangladesh.
All of this serves as an important reminder of the power Google’s search engine has in shaping public perceptions of any event – and its vulnerability to being exploited. It’s also an important reminder to anyone who uses Google’s search engine to engage critically with the results it dishes up, rather than accepting them at face value.
What is algorithmic bias?
The algorithms that power Google’s search engine are trained on massive amounts of data. This data is gathered by computer bots which crawl billions of pages on the Internet and automatically analyse their content and quality. This information is stored in a large database, which Google’s search engine relies on to serve up relevant results whenever it receives a query.
But this process doesn’t capture every website on the Internet. It is also governed by predetermined rules about what is high quality and what is low quality, and reflects existing biases in data. For example, even though only 16% of the world’s population speaks English, it accounts for 55% of all written content online.
This means the reality of life on the ground in non-English speaking countries is often not reflected in Google search results. This is especially true for those countries located in the Global South.
This lack of representation perpetuates real-world biases. It can also hinder a nuanced public understanding of global issues.
What’s happening between Bangladesh and India?
Relations between Muslim-majority Bangladesh and neighbouring India, which is currently led by the Hindu nationalist BJP government, have deteriorated recently.
These protests resulted in the downfall of prime minister Sheikh Hasina’s long-lasting autocratic regime, which had been supported by the Indian government.
An interim government filled the void. But certain Indian media outlets have leveraged sensitive issues such as Hindu minority rights to undermine its legitimacy.
In November, Bangladeshi authorities arrested Hindu leader Chinmoy Krishna Das on sedition charges over allegations he had disrespected the Bangladeshi flag. This triggered violent clashes between his supporters and police. These clashes resulted in the death of a Muslim lawyer.
Hindu activists also attacked a Bangladeshi consulate in India.
There have also been verified instances of mob violence against Hindus in Bangladesh. However, the Bangladeshi government claims these incidents are politically motivated rather than communal attacks.
The unrest intensified earlier this month, with thousands of protestors destroying the family home of deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina in the Bangladeshi capital, Dhaka.
This campaign has been boosted by Google’s algorithmic bias.
For example, an analysis by the Tech Global Institute of Google search results about Chinmoy Krishna Das’s arrest between November 25 and December 20 last year found a “consistent pattern of bias”.
Specifically, Indian news outlets – including Hindu ultranationalist news outlets – “disproportionately” dominated the top search results. This overshadowed
factual reporting from credible Bangladeshi media outlets […] despite the search originating from within Bangladesh, the country where the incident originally occurred.
This bias was also evident in search queries coming from overseas. For example, roughly 90% of the top results about Chinmoy Krishna Das were from Indian outlets when searched from Australia and the United States. Bangladeshi news outlets featured on the thirteenth and fourteenth pages of results.
Indian news outlets – unlike their Bangladeshi counterparts – produce a substantial amount of content in English. They also employ more advanced search engine optimisation – or SEO – techniques, such as using effective keywords and sensationalist headlines. This gives them an advantage in Google search results compared to their Bangladeshi counterparts.
Another investigation by Bangladeshi fact-checking outlet Rumor Scanner in December 2024 found 72% of social media accounts spreading fake and misinformation are located in India.
The Conversation asked Google a series of questions about its search engine. It did not receive a response.
An illustrative case of a global problem
Bangladesh is an illustrative case of the global problem of algorithmic bias. It highlights how search engines can be exploited to promote disinformation and misinformation and powerfully shape people’s perceptions about what’s happening in the world.
It also highlights how everybody should think critically about the information they find online about the current situation in Bangladesh. Or about any news event, for that matter.
The case also reinforces the urgent need for policymakers, tech companies and governments to work together to effectively address algorithmic bias. This is especially urgent in the Global South, where marginal voices remain silenced.
Abdul Aziz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Here is a scenario, but first a broad brush-painted historical parallel.
Hitler and the Nazis could well have accomplished everything that they wanted to do within German borders, including exterminating Jews, so long as they confined their ambitious to Germany itself. After all, the world pretty much sat and watched as the Nazi pogroms unfolded in the late 1930s.
But Hitler never intended to confine himself to Germany and decided to attack his neighbours simultaneously, on multiple fronts East, West, North and South.
This came against the advice of his generals, who believed that his imperialistic war-mongering should happen sequentially and that Germany should not fight the USSR until it had conquered Europe first, replenished with pillaged resources, and then reorganised its forces for the move East. They also advised that Germany should also avoid tangling with the US, which had pro-Nazi sympathisers in high places (like Charles Lindbergh) and was leaning towards neutrality in spite of FDR’s support for the UK.
Hitler ignored the advice and attacked in every direction, got bogged down in the Soviet winter, drew in the US in by attacking US shipping ferrying supplies to the UK, and wound up stretching his forces in North Africa, the entire Eastern front into Ukraine and the North Mediterranean states, the Scandinavian Peninsula and the UK itself.
In other words, he bit off too much in one chew and wound up paying the price for his over-reach.
Hitler did what he did because he could, thanks in part to the 1933 Enabling Law that superseded all other German laws and allowed him carte blanche to pursue his delusions. That proved to be his undoing because his ambition was not matched by his strategic acumen and resources when confronted by an armed alliance of adversaries.
A version of this in US? A version of this may be what is unfolding in the US. Using the cover of broad Executive Powers, Musk, Trump and their minions are throwing everything at the kitchen wall in order to see what sticks.
They are breaking domestic and international norms and conventions pursuant to the neo-reactionary “disruptor” and “chaos” theories propelling the US techno-authoritarian Right. They want to dismantle the US federal State, including the systems of checks and balances embodied in the three branches of government, subordinating all policy to the dictates of an uber-powerful Executive Branch.
In this view the Legislature and Judiciary serve as rubber stamp legitimating devices for Executive rule. Many of those in the Musk-lead DOGE teams are subscribers to this ideology.
At the same time the new oligarchs want to re-make the International order as well as interfere in the domestic politics of other liberal democracies. Musk openly campaigns for the German far-Right AfD in this year’s elections, he and Trump both celebrate neo-fascists like Viktor Urban in Hungry and Javier Milei in Argentina.
Trump utters delusional desires to “make” Canada the 51st State, forcibly regain control of the Panama Canal, annex Greenland, turn Gaza into a breach resort complex and eliminate international institutions like the World Trade Organisation and even NATO if it does not do what he says.
He imposes sanctions on the International Criminal Court, slaps sanctions on South Africa for land take-overs and because it took a case of genocide against Israel in the ICC, doubles down on his support for Netanyahu’s ethnic cleansing campaign against Palestinians and is poised to sell-out Ukraine by using the threat of an aid cut-off to force the Ukrainians to cede sovereignty to Russia over all of their territory east of the Donbas River (and Crimea).
He even unilaterally renames the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America in a teenaged display of symbolic posturing that ignores the fact that renaming the Gulf has no standing in international law and “America” is a term that refers to the North, Central and South land masses of the Western Hemisphere — i.e., it is not exclusive to or propriety of the United States.
Dismantling the globalised trade system Trump wants to dismantle the globalised system of trade by using tariffs as a weapon as well as leverage, “punishing” nations for non-trade as well as trade issues because of their perceived dependence on the US market. This is evident in the tariffs (briefly) imposed on Canada, Mexico and Colombia over issues of immigration and re-patriation of US deportees.
In other words, Trump 2.0 is about redoing the World Order in his preferred image, doing everything more or less at once. It is as if Trump, Musk and their Project 2025 foot soldiers believe in a reinterpreted version of “shock and awe:” the audacity and speed of the multipronged attack on everything will cause opponents to be paralysed by the move and therefore will be unable to resist it.
That includes extending cultural wars by taking over the Kennedy Center for the Arts (a global institution) because he does not like the type of “culture” (read: African American) that is presented there and he wants to replace the Center’s repertoire with more “appropriate” (read: Anglo-Saxon) offerings. The assault on the liberal institutional order (at home and abroad), in other words, is holistic and universal in nature.
Trump’s advisers are even talking about ignoring court orders barring some of their actions, setting up a constitutional crisis scenario that they believe they will win in the current Supreme Court.
I am sure that Musk/Trump can get away with a fair few of these disruptions, but I am not certain that they can get away with all of them. They may have more success on the domestic rather than the international front given the power dynamics in each arena. In any event they do not seem to have thought much about the ripple effect responses to their moves, specifically the blowback that might ensue.
This is where the Nazi analogy applies. It could be that Musk and Trump have also bitten more than they can chew. They may have Project 2025 as their road map, but even maps do not always get the weather right, or accurately predict the mood of locals encountered along the way to wherever one proposes to go. That could well be–and it is my hope that it is–the cause of their undoing.
Overreach, egos, hubris and the unexpected detours around and obstacles presented by foreign and domestic actors just might upset their best laid plans.
Dotage is on daily public display That brings up another possibility. Trump’s remarks in recent weeks are descending into senescence and caducity. His dotage is on daily public display. Only his medications have changed. He is more subdued than during the campaign but no less mad. He leaves the ranting and raving to Musk, who only truly listens to the fairies in his ear.
But it is possible that there are ghost whisperers in Trump’s ear as well (Stephen Miller, perhaps), who deliberately plant preposterous ideas in his feeble head and egg him on to pursue them. In the measure that he does so and begins to approach the red-line of obvious derangement, then perhaps the stage is being set from within by Musk and other oligarchs for a 25th Amendment move to unseat him in favour of JD Vance, a far more dangerous member of the techbro puppet masters’ cabal.
Remember that most of Trump’s cabinet are billionaires and millionaires and only Cabinet can invoke the 25th Amendment.
Vance has incentive to support this play because Trump (foolishly, IMO) has publicly stated that he does not see Vance as his successor and may even run for a third term. That is not want the techbro overlords wanted to hear, so they may have to move against Trump sooner rather than later if they want to impose their oligarchical vision on the US and world.
An impeachment would be futile given Congress’s make-up and Trump’s two-time wins over his Congressional opponents. A third try is a non-starter and would take too long anyway. Short of death (that has been suggested) the 25th Amendment is the only way to remove him.
It is at that point that I hope that things will start to unravel for them. It is hard to say what the MAGA-dominated Congress will do if laws are flouted on a wholesale basis and constituents begin to complain about the negative impact of DOGE cost-cutting on federal programmes. But one thing is certain, chaos begets chaos (because chaos is not synonymous with techbro libertarians’ dreams of anarchy) and disruption for disruption’s sake may not result in an improved socio-economic and political order.
Those are some of the “unknown unknowns” that the neo-con Donald Rumsfeld used to talk about.
In other words, vamos a ver–we shall see.
Dr Paul G Buchanan is the director of 36th-Parallel Assessments, a geopolitical and strategic analysis consultancy. This article is republished from Kiwipolitico with the permission of the author.
With the unembarrassed audacity parties show as an election nears, the government has stolen the opposition’s policy to ban foreign investors buying established homes.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Housing Minister Clare O’Neil have announced foreigners won’t be able to purchase established homes from April 1 for at least two years, with a review to determine whether the ban should be extended.
When the opposition announced its policy last year, Labor was dismissive, pointing out the numbers were minuscule. But the idea is popular with the public and the government is anxious to neutralise it.
The turnabout comes immediately ahead of the Reserve Bank’s’s two-day meeting starting Monday, with expectations high that on Tuesday the bank may finally start moving rates down.
A rate cut would increase speculation Anthony Albanese will opt for an April rather than a May election. That would mean cancelling the March 25 budget.
With the election fast approaching and polls suggesting a high prospect of a minority government, attention has turned to how crossbenchers would react in the event of a hung parliament.
Much conjecture is around the “teals” who occupy former Liberal seats but are more progressive than the current Liberal party.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton said on Sunday: “It would be unusual that if we were able to achieve 72 [a majority is 76] and we were a number of seats ahead of the Labor Party, that there wouldn’t be a guarantee of supply and confidence from the crossbench.
“But some of them will only ever support the Labor Party. I think if they’re into transparency and honesty, they should be transparent and honest with the public before the election about if you vote for Kate Chaney, are you going to get Anthony Albanese or will she support a Coalition government in a minority situation?”
Chaney, one of the teals, holds the Western Australian seat of Curtin, which the Liberals believe is a chance for them.
In their statement about foreign investors, Chalmers and O’Neil said the government would also “crack down” on foreign land banking.
The ministers admitted these latest initiatives were small but said they were an important part of the government’s broad housing policy,
“Until now, foreign investors have generally been barred from buying existing property except in limited circumstances, such as when they come to live here for work or study,” they said.
Under the new arrangements, “foreign investors (including temporary residents and foreign-owned companies) will no longer be able to purchase an established dwelling in Australia while the ban is in place unless an exception applies.”
On landbanking, the ministers said foreign investors are presently subject to developmental conditions requiring they put vacant land to use within a reasonable time.
“The Government is focused on making sure these rules are complied with and identifying any investors who are acquiring vacant land, not developing it while prices rise and then selling it for a profit.”
The Australian Taxation Office and Treasury will be funded for an audit program and to improve compliance.
Dutton hints at action against insurance companies that ‘rip off’ people
While Labor sought to shore up its credentials on housing, Dutton was venturing further down the interventionist road, hinting a Coalition government might use divestiture against recalcitrant insurance companies.
The Coalition has already courted controversy with its threat supermarkets could face divestiture.
Dutton is now looking more widely, after being concerned about how people in areas recently devastated by fires or floods often haven’t insurance because they can’t afford the increasingly high premiums.
Asked on Sky whether the Coalition would reduce the cost of insurance, Dutton said, “We need to make sure that we’re not being ripped off by insurance companies.
“As we’ve done with the supermarkets, where we have threatened divestment if consumers are being ripped off, similarly, in the insurance market, we will intervene to make sure that consumers get a fair go because at the moment people are paying too much for their insurance and what’s resulting is that people aren’t taking out insurance. […] People just simply can’t afford to insure the car or their home at the moment.”
In a wideranging interview, Dutton cast doubt on whether the opposition would support any extension of government relief on power bills.
“If it’s going to be inflationary and it’s going to keep interest rates higher for longer and it’s going to keep grocery prices higher for longer and it’s going to keep electricity prices higher for longer, then no.”
(The relief the government has already provided put downward pressure on inflation.)
The opposition leader criticised the government for not putting enough effort into its handling of the Trump administration.
“Every minister should have been cycling through Washington. I’m not aware that other ministers have been to Washington since Penny Wong was there for the inauguration,” he said.
“If they have, that’s great. But the prime minister probably should have been on a plane to the US, as we’ve seen with other world leaders and there should have been greater engagement with the president earlier on.”
Dutton apparently forgot the visit made by Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, who was the first defence minister to meet new defence secretary Pete Hegseth.
Reminded of the Marles visit, he immediately criticised him. “Richard Marles is a nice guy, but he’s batting fairly significantly down the list in terms of the government’s key hitters.”
Dutton said Trump had to be seen in a different light to other presidents.
“Donald Trump is different to any of his predecessors, certainly in the modern age. If you look at his background, he’s a businessman, he does deals, he brings parties together, he swaps contracts. That’s been his background, and it’s not a background, probably, that’s been shared by too many of his predecessors. So, I don’t think you’re taking everything he says literally.”
Dutton left his options open when asked whether he would replace Kevin Rudd as ambassador to the United States.
“We have to have an ambassador who is in our country’s best interests. Kevin, obviously, is an accomplished person as prime minister of our country and if he’s the best person for the job, then he should stay in the job.
“If it turns out that he’s had no access to the White House and no real influence in relation to this [tariff] issue or whatever the next issue might be, then you would have to reassess his position. But at the moment, we’re being told that he’s effective in his advocacy in the administration. I suppose time will tell.
“My instinct would be to leave him in the job. But […] if there are insurmountable problems that he has, or that the administration has with him, then that would make it very difficult.”
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Nara Monkam, Associate Professor of Public Economics, Chair in Municipal Finance within the Department of Economics, and Head of the Public Policy Hub at the University of Pretoria, University of Pretoria
The African continent finds itself in a predicament. Advanced economies in the rest of the world developed through industrialisation: their economies transformed from mainly agricultural to industrial. This involved burning fossil fuels like coal, generating greenhouse gas emissions that caused global warming.
African economies have trailed behind industrially. They’re now industrialising at a time when the world is moving away from fossil fuels and towards solar power, wind energy and hydropower.
Africa has 60% of the world’s best solar resources but only 1% of the world’s installed solar power systems. Despite renewable energy capacity nearly doubling in the last decade, only 2% of global investments in renewable energy went to Africa.
Green industrialisation could be the answer: achieving long-term economic growth and industrial development that does not harm the environment. But in most African countries, renewable energy is more expensive than fossil fuels, which are readily available in many parts of the continent. Africa is also one of the world’s poorest regions and cannot easily afford green technologies.
So a key issue in economic development is how to stimulate green industrial productivity. Green finance (funding from banks and investors specifically for environmentally friendly projects) can fund green innovations. These include renewable energy technologies, energy-efficient building designs, or electric vehicles.
I am an economist who worked with a team of researchers to study the impact of green finance on industrialisation in Africa. We also wanted to find out if green innovation influenced the effect that green finance has on industrialisation. (This was measured in this study as the total industrial value added as a percentage of gross domestic product.)
For example, switching to renewable energy like solar power reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and helps mitigate climate change. But the high costs of renewable energy equipment could harm industrial growth.
The research analysed macroeconomic and energy, green finance and industrialisation statistics from 41 African countries between 2000 and 2020.
Our research found that green finance offers funding opportunities for clean and innovative technologies and creating new jobs in green sectors. However, the potential of green financing to drive industrialisation through green innovation (such as renewable energy projects) is not being realised.
This is because renewable energy comes with high costs. There also are not enough skilled people available to run green projects. There’s a lack of proper roads, connectivity or transmission lines to connect renewable energy to the main grid. The basic conditions for industrial growth through renewable energy are not in place.
Governments in Africa should find ways to make green innovation work. This will mean that society can enjoy the benefit of new environmentally friendly projects.
How to make green innovation work
African governments should focus on increasing people’s access to renewable energy projects. For this to happen, they need to put more funding and effort into developing renewable energy infrastructure. Renewable energy technologies must be available and affordable.
Education and capacity building is needed, particularly in rural communities. For example, community-owned solar microgrid projects provide people with the skills needed to manage and look after renewable energy systems.
Governments will need to subsidise local manufacturing of renewable energy components. When these are produced locally, this can help harness the potential of green innovation for industrialisation and also create jobs.
Countries must co-operate regionally on green innovation. This means sharing best practices, pooling resources, and making coordinated efforts towards green industrialisation.
Our research found that it would be useful to set up regional centres of excellence for renewable energy research and development. Regional alliances are also needed, so that countries can work together to negotiate better terms for green finance. This could enhance Africa’s journey towards the kind of green industrialisation that is cost effective and sustainable over time.
What needs to happen next
These steps would boost the impact of green finance on industrialisation in Africa:
more climate finance, including finance from the private sector
environmental taxation – a policy tool to limit activities, goods or services that have negative environmental impacts
development bank funding tailored to the needs of African countries. Nations that invest in renewable energy manufacturing should get tax breaks and other incentives. Green bonds that only fund renewable energy projects should be issued to attract private investors
vocational training and higher education programmes that focus on training people in green technologies must get government funding.
Africa has a huge problem with trying to build some resilience to the effects of climate change, such as floods and drought. Economic development is also a challenge on the continent. Both could be addressed by green industrialisation. With the right investments in green finance, innovation and infrastructure, the continent can unlock sustainable growth, reduce poverty and help curb climate change.
Nara Monkam receives funding from the University of Pretoria.
Low-income South Africans in rural areas feel left out of the technological advancements linked to the fourth industrial revolution.Lucian Coman/Shutterstock
The term refers to the integration of advanced digital technologies like AI and robotics, as well as automation, into various economic and social domains. The first (1760s to early 1800s), second (1870s to early 1900s) and third (1950s to late 20th century) industrial revolutions were mechanical and electronic in nature. The 4IR is characterised by the fusion of physical, digital and biological systems. It is fundamentally reshaping industries, work and societies.
Ramaphosa acknowledged at the time that the 4IR “may lead to job losses”. However, he added, it would also “create many new opportunities”:
Through this transformation, we can build the South Africa we want, ensuring inclusive and shared growth for all.
Six years on, the commission’s work has yielded some results. It’s led to the establishment of the National Artificial Intelligence Institute and the creation of AI hubs in key sectors like healthcare and mining.
But how do ordinary South Africans view the 4IR? Globally, research has shown that there’s a stark divide in how people view the promises and perils of modern technological advancements. The wealthy, armed with access to education and resources, see opportunity. Marginalised groups, particularly those in lower-income brackets, are left fearing job losses and economic exclusion. Historical and cultural anxieties around technology also play a role in people’s perceptions.
I’m a researcher whose work explores, among other things, the intersection of technology, policy and governance. I am especially interested in the 4IR in a South African context and recently co-authored a study with development studies scholar Oliver Mtapuri to examine the role of social class on people’s views of technological change.
We found that wealthier South Africans, particularly those in urban areas, were more optimistic about automation, artificial intelligence and other emerging 4IR technologies than those in lower-income and rural communities. Racial disparities were evident, too. White South Africans were 2.5 times more likely to report feeling comfortable with technological change than Black South Africans.
These findings can help policymakers understand how best to push for a 4IR in South Africa that doesn’t deepen existing inequalities. This will require inclusive digital policies and expanded access to technology and training. Here South Africa could learn from countries like Germany and Finland.
Germany is working nationwide to equip workers with the skills needed for an increasingly digital economy. Finland, meanwhile, has focused on active labour market policies. It combines digital training programmes with progressive social welfare measures to support workers transitioning between industries. Both countries have also expanded social protections by extending unemployment benefits and offering financial support for retraining. They’ve also ensured that gig and platform workers have access to social security.
Marginalised groups left behind
Our data was drawn from the South African Social Attitudes Survey. It’s a nationally representative survey of 2,736 adults (16 and older). We conducted a secondary analysis of the data. The focus was on questions in the survey about technological change, fears of job displacement and access to digital tools. This, alongside an analysis of demographic data in the survey, allowed us to examine class, race and geographic disparities in perceptions of automation, AI and digital transformation.
56% of South Africans believed that 4IR technologies would lead to job losses rather than job creation. Lower-income groups expressed the highest levels of concern.
Unemployment was a key determinant of 4IR scepticism: 63% of unemployed respondents felt threatened by automation, compared to 41% of those currently employed.
Only 29% of respondents from rural areas reported having regular access to the internet. The figure was 74% among urban respondents.
There are structural and historical barriers to lower-income South Africans’ economic mobility, access to quality education and participation in the digital economy.
Today, rural areas lack reliable internet connections. (About 31.18% of South Africa’s population live in rural areas.) This makes it nearly impossible for people to benefit from or contribute to the digital economy.
Many industries at the forefront of automation, such as manufacturing and agriculture, are those with the highest number of low-skilled workers. Research by the International Labour Organisation emphasises that vulnerable workers all over the world often lack the skills needed in new job markets. This reinforces workers’ fears that technology will replace them.
Closing the gap: policy solutions
It will take bold, inclusive policies to address these inequalities.
The South African government must do more to increase access to technology. It already subsidises internet costs especially to schools. It has also expanded broadband networks into some under-served areas. And it offers free digital skills programmes. The problem is that these efforts are piecemeal. A more cohesive national strategy is needed.
Policies must also be developed with those who have been excluded from technological progress. This will allow them to participate fully in the digital economy – and, perhaps, come to understand and trust technology a bit more.
In practice, this could mean expanding initiatives like the National Digital and Future Skills strategy, which aims to equip citizens with the necessary skills to participate in the digital economy. This focuses on developing digital skills across various sectors and communities, ensuring inclusivity and broad participation.
Additionally, policies could support township-based digital innovation hubs such as the Tshimologong Digital Innovation Precinct. It provides training, incubation and resources to entrepreneurs from marginalised communities, enabling them to participate meaningfully in the digital economy.
Industries have a role to play, too. Singapore’s Skills Future initiative provides citizens with resources to adapt to changing job markets. This is a good example of government and industry working together. Closer to home, Rwanda’s Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution (C4IR) brings together “government, industry, civil society and academia to co-design, test and refine policy frameworks and governance protocols that maximise the benefits of new technologies”.
The 4IR has the potential to transform South Africa. But this will only happen if its benefits are shared equitably among all citizens. Innovation must be re-imagined not as a tool to consolidate wealth and privilege but as a means of creating a more inclusive society.
Zama Mthombeni does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Mediawatch on RNZ today strongly criticised Stuff and YouTube among other media for using Israeli propaganda’s “Outbrain” service.
Outbrain is a company founded by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) military and its technology can be tracked back to a wealthy entrepreneur, which in this case could be a euphemism for a megalomaniac.
He uses the metaphor of a “dome”, likening it to the dome used in warfare.
Outbrain, which publishes content on New Zealand media, picks up what’s out there and converts and distorts it to support Israel. It twists, it turns, it deceives the reader.
Outbrain uses the media in the following way. The content user such as Stuff pays Outbrain and Outbrain pays the user, like Stuff.
“Both parties make money when users click on the content,” said Peacock.
‘Digital Iron Dome’ The content on the Stuff website came via “Digital Iron Dome” named after the State of Genociders’ actual defence system. It is run by a tech entrepreneur quoted on Mediawatch:
“Just like a physical iron dome that scans the open air and watches for any missiles . . . the digital iron dome knows how to scan the internet. We know how to buy media. Pro-Israeli videos and articles and images inside the very same articles going against Israel,” says the developer of the propaganda “dome” machine.
Peacock said the developer had stated that the digital dome delivered “pro-Jewish”* messages to more than 100 million people worldwide on platforms like Al Jazeera, CNN — and last weekend on Stuff NZ — and said this information went undetected as pro-Israel material, ensuring it reached, according to the entrepreneur: “The right audience without interference.”
According to Wikipedia, Outbrain was founded by Yaron Galai and Ori Lahav, officers in the Israeli Navy. Galai sold his company Quigo to AOL in 2007 for $363 million. Lahav worked at an online shopping company acquired by eBay in 2005.
The company is headquartered in New York with global offices in London, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington DC, Cologne, Gurugram, Paris, Ljubljana, Munich, Milan, Madrid, Tokyo, São Paulo, Netanya, Singapore, and Sydney.
Peacock pointed out that other advocacy organisations had already been buying and posting content, there was nothing new about this with New Zealand news media.
But — and this is important — the Media Council ruled in 2017 that Outbrain content was the publisher’s responsibility: that the news media in NZ were responsible for promoted links that were offered to their readers.
“Back then publishers at Stuff and the Herald said they would do more to oversee the content, with Stuff stating it is paid promoted content,” said Peacock, in his role as the media watchdog.
Still ‘big money business’ “But this is also still a big money business and the outfits using these tools are getting much bigger exposure from their arrangements with news publishers such as Stuff,” he said.
He pointed out that the recently appointed Outbrain boss for Australia New Zealand and Singapore, Chris Oxley, had described Outbrain as “a leader in digital media connecting advertisers with premium audiences in contextually relevant environments”.
The watchdog Mediawatch said that news organisations should drop Outbrain.
“Media environments where news and neutrality are important aren’t really relevant environments for political propaganda that’s propagated by online opportunists who know how to make money out of it and also to raise funds while they are at it, ” said Peacock.
“These services like Outbrain are sometimes called ‘recommendation engines’ but our recommendation to news media is don’t use them for the sake of the trust of the people you say you want to earn and keep: the readers,” said Peacock.
Saige England is a journalist and author, and member of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA).
* Being “pro-Jewish” should not be equated with being pro-genocide nor should antisemitism be levelled at Jews who are against this genocide. The propaganda from Outbrain does a disservice to Palestinians and also to those Jewish people who support all human rights — the right of Palestinians to life and the right to live on their land.
Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark maintains that Cook Islands, a realm of New Zealand, should have consulted Wellington before signing a “partnership” deal with China.
“[Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown] seems to have signed behind the backs of his own people as well as of New Zealand,” Clark told RNZ Pacific.
Brown said the deal with China complements, not replaces, the relationship with New Zealand.
The contents of the deal have not yet been made public.
“The Cook Islands public need to see the agreement — does it open the way to Chinese entry to deep sea mining in pristine Cook Islands waters with huge potential for environmental damage?” Clark asked.
“Does it open the way to unsustainable borrowing? What are the governance safeguards? Why has the prime minister damaged the relationship with New Zealand by acting in this clandestine way?”
In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Clark went into detail about the declaration she signed with Cook Islands Prime Minister Terepai Maoate in 2001.
“There is no doubt in my mind that under the terms of the Joint Centenary Declaration of 2001 that Cook Islands should have been upfront with New Zealand on the agreement it was considering signing with China,” Clark said.
“Cook Islands has opted in the past for a status which is not independent of New Zealand, as signified by its people carrying New Zealand passports. Cook Islands is free to change that status, but has not.”
Sione Tekiteki in Tonga for PIFLM 2024 . . . his last leader’s meeting in his capacity as Director of Governance and Engagement. IMage: RNZ Pacific/ Lydia Lewis
Missing the mark A Pacific law expert said there was a clear misunderstanding on what the 2001 agreement legally required New Zealand and Cook Islands to consult on.
AUT senior law lecturer and former Pacific Islands Forum policy advisor Sione Tekiteki told RNZ Pacific the word “consultation” had become somewhat of a sticking point:
“From a legal perspective, there’s an ambiguity of what the word consultation means. Does it mean you have to share the agreement before it’s signed, or does it mean that you broadly just consult with New Zealand regarding what are some of the things that, broadly speaking, are some of the things that are in the agreement?
“That’s one avenue where there’s a bit of misunderstanding and an interpretation issue that’s different between Cook Islands as well as New Zealand.”
Unlike a treaty, the 2001 declaration is not “legally binding” per se but serves more to express the intentions, principles and commitments of the parties to work together in “recognition of the close traditional, cultural and social ties that have existed between the two countries for many hundreds of years”, he added.
Tekiteki said that the declaration made it explicitly clear that Cook Islands had full conduct of its foreign affairs, capacity to enter treaties and international agreements in its own right and full competence of its defence and security.
There was, however, a commitment of the parties to “consult regularly”, he said.
For Clark, the one who signed the all-important agreement all those years ago, this is where Brown had misstepped.
Pacific nations played off against each other Tekiteki said it was not just the Joint Centenary Declaration causing contention. The “China threat” narrative and the “intensifying geopolitics” playing out in the Pacific was another intergrated issue.
An analysis in mid-2024 found that there were more than 60 security, defence and policing agreements and initiatives with the 10 largest Pacific countries.
Australia was the dominant partner, followed by New Zealand, the US and China.
A host of other agreements and “big money” announcements have followed, including the regional Pacific Policing Initiative and Australia’s arrangements with Nauru and PNG.
“It would be advantageous if Pacific nations were able to engage on security related matters as a bloc rather than at the bilateral level,” Tekiteki said.
“Not only will this give them greater political agency and leverage, but it would allow them to better coordinate and integrate support as well as avoid duplications. Entering these arrangements at the bilateral level opens Pacific nations to being played off against each other.
“This is the most worrying aspect of what I am currently seeing.
“This matter has greater implications for Cook Islands and New Zealand diplomatic relations moving forward.”
Mark Brown talking to China’s Ambassador to the Pacific, Qian Bo, who told the media an affirming reference to Taiwan in the PIF 2024 communique “must be corrected”. Image: RNZ Pacific/Lydia Lewis
Protecting Pacific sovereignty The word sovereignty is thrown around a lot. In this instance Tekiteki does not think “there is any dispute that Cook Islands maintains sovereignty to enter international arrangements and to conduct its affairs as it determines”.
But he did point out the difference between “sovereignty — the rhetoric” that we hear all the time, and “real sovereignty”.
“For example, sovereignty is commonly used as a rebuttal to other countries to mind their own business and not to meddle in the affairs of another country.
“At the regional level is tied to the projection of collective Pacific agency, and the ‘Blue Pacific’ narrative.
“However, real sovereignty is more nuanced. In the context of New Zealand and Cook Islands, both countries retain their sovereignty, but they have both made commitments to “consult” and “cooperate”.
Now, they can always decide to break that, but that in itself would have implications on their respective sovereignty moving forward.
“In an era of intensifying geopolitics, militarisation, and power posturing — this becomes very concerning for vulnerable but large Ocean Pacific nations without the defence capabilities to protect their sovereignty.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The current conditions in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) resemble the situation during the Second Congo War between 1998 and 2003. This resulted in millions of deaths, with neighbouring countries – especially Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi – playing a significant role.
The pan-African weekly The Continent has already raised alarms. A February 2025 cover features a cartoon referencing the 1884 Berlin Conference, but instead of colonial powers carving up the Congo, it depicts regional states dividing the country among themselves. Kristof Titeca, who has extensively studied the dynamics of conflict in the DRC, unpacks the interests of the key players.
Kinshasa is filled with rumours about internal political and military tensions: fears of a coup could have prevented Tshisekedi from travelling to the earlier peace talks. The president’s personal security is handled by an Israeli security firm, indicating the level of distrust towards his own security services.
As it stands, Kinshasa seems to have lost control over the situation in the east. Tshisekedi has largely pinned his hopes on international pressure. Yet, many international actors have expressed frustration with his erratic and sometimes unrealistic decisions in addressing the conflict. Tshisekedi has purchased new and sophisticated weapons instead of tackling the structural weaknesses of the army (such as widespread corruption). He also decided to collaborate with a wide range of armed groups under the “Wazalendo” banner to stop rebel forces.
Rwanda
In theory, M23 is fighting to protect the Rwandophone community in eastern Congo (particularly the Tutsi community). Under the Alliance Fleuve Congo – the political wing of the M23 rebellion – this goal later expanded into a broader national agenda aiming to overthrow the regime in Kinshasa.
Whether this will actually happen remains uncertain. What is, however, certain is that Rwanda’s interests mainly lie in the east of the country. These interests are a mix of political, economic and security factors – strongly rooted in history.
Rwanda’s president Paul Kagame in the past has publicly questioned the borders between Rwanda and Congo. This narrative on “Greater Rwanda” would mean extending Rwanda beyond its colonial borders. Access to resources plays a role in Rwanda’s presence in the DRC, as does (in)security.
Rwanda wants influence and control. This is where M23 plays a crucial role. In Kigali, the idea of eastern DRC as a “buffer zone” is openly used. This would mean having an armed actor, such as the M23, govern provinces in the eastern region to protect Rwanda’s political, security and economic interests.
Uganda
Shortly after the fall of Goma, neighbouring Uganda deployed around 1,000 additional troops to Congo. In private conversations with me, diplomats estimate the country already had between 3,000 and 7,000 troops in the DRC. Officially, Uganda is there to fight another rebel group – the Allied Democratic Forces, which is linked to the Islamic State. However, these newly deployed troops have been moving towards the M23 rebels.
Uganda has always played an ambiguous role in the conflict. On the one hand, it wants to continue joint military operations with the Congolese army against the Allied Democratic Forces. On the other hand, it cannot allow its long-standing “frenemy” Rwanda to be the only power exerting influence over eastern Congo and M23.
For the past 30 years, these two neighbouring countries have competed for control in eastern Congo – sometimes cooperating, but often in direct competition.
Like Rwanda, Uganda’s main export is gold, and just like Rwanda, the vast majority of this gold comes from eastern Congo.
Several prominent Ugandan political and military figures – including Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the head of the Ugandan army and son of the president – have openly voiced their support for M23 and questioned Congo’s borders. And shortly after M23 entered Bukavu, Muhoozi announced – again – an expansion of the Ugandan operation in DRC, threatening an attack in the town of Bunia in the eastern province of Ituri.
In the current context, the movement of Ugandan troops could be seen as a clear signal to Rwanda: this is our zone of influence. In doing so, the conflict concerningly starts to look like the Second Congo War when Uganda and Rwanda divided Congolese territory. Uganda claimed Ituri, while Rwanda claimed the North and South Kivu provinces.
Burundi
Burundian troops are present in Congo at the invitation of Kinshasa. Meanwhile, tensions between Burundi and Rwanda are rising. UN reports indicate that both Burundi and Rwanda have resumed supporting rebel groups against each other’s governments in eastern Congo. These reports also claim that the Rwandan army has issued direct orders to target Burundian soldiers in the region.
With the M23 entering Bukavu, the group is getting increasingly close to the Burundian border, increasing the country’s concerns of regional escalation.
International community
The risk of an escalation of the DRC conflict underscores a number of issues. Most obviously, any attempt to resolve the crisis needs to involve the regional countries involved.
It also shows the importance of international pressure on Rwanda. It is generally accepted by analysts that this pressure – such as a US$240 million aid cut by a variety of donors – played a key role in ending the 2012-2013 M23 conflict.
While actors such as the European Union and United States have firmly condemned Rwanda, this has materialised into little action. So far, Germany has suspended aid talks with Rwanda, and the United Kingdom has threatened to cut aid. Other than that, there has been no action – a striking difference from 2012-2013.
Given US president Donald Trump’s “America First” policy, eyes are on the European Union to take action. However, internal differences are so far making this difficult. Belgium has been pushing for sanctions, while France has been taking the lead in blocking these. France’s national interests are a key reason for this: Rwandan peacekeeping troops are key in Mozambique, where a major TotalEnergies gas project – worth US$20 billion – is on hold because of an ongoing insurgency.
Next steps
The structural weaknesses of the Tshisekedi government should not be used as an excuse by international actors to fail to pressure Rwanda. At the moment, there is a major risk of the violence in eastern DRC escalating to the region.
Further, there is already a major humanitarian crisis. Since the beginning of the year alone, more than 700,000 people in the DRC have been displaced by the M23 conflict. The World Health Organization has warned that a public health “nightmare” is unfolding. Since the fall of Goma, M23 has unlawfully ordered tens of thousands of displaced people to leave the camps around the city. To prevent a bigger regional humanitarian crisis, urgent action is therefore needed.
Kristof Titeca is a Senior Associate Fellow at the Egmont Institute (Brussels).
Government scientists at NOAA collect and provide crucial public information about coastal conditions that businesses, individuals and other scientists rely on.NOAA’s National Ocean Service
Information on the internet might seem like it’s there forever, but it’s only as permanent as people choose to make it.
That’s apparent as the second Trump administration “floods the zone” with efforts to dismantle science agencies and the data and websites they use to communicate with the public. The targets range from public health and demographics to climate science.
We are a research librarian and policy scholar who belong to a network called the Public Environmental Data Partners, a coalition of nonprofits, archivists and researchers who rely on federal data in our analysis, advocacy and litigation and are working to ensure that data remains available to the public.
In just the first three weeks of Trump’s term, we saw agencies remove access to at least a dozen climate and environmental justice analysis tools. The new administration also scrubbed the phrase “climate change” from government websites, as well as terms like “resilience.”
Here’s why and how Public Environmental Data Partners and others are making sure that the climate science the public depends on is available forever.
Why government websites and data matter
The internet and the availability of data are necessary for innovation, research and daily life.
If the data and tools used to understand complex data are abruptly taken off the internet, the work of scientists, civil society organizations and government officials themselves can grind to a halt. The generation of scientific data and analysis by government scientists is also crucial. Many state governments run environmental protection and public health programs that depend on science and data collected by federal agencies.
Removing information from government websites also makes it harder for the public to effectively participate in key processes of democracy, including changes to regulations. When an agency proposes to repeal a rule, for example, it is required to solicit comments from the public, who often depend on government websites to find information relevant to the rule.
And when web resources are altered or taken offline, it breeds mistrust in both government and science. Government agencies have collected climate data, conducted complex analyses, provided funding and hosted data in a publicly accessible manner for years. People around the word understand climate change in large part because of U.S. federal data. Removing it deprives everyone of important information about their world.
The second Trump administration seems different, with more rapid and pervasive removal of information.
In response, groups involved in Public Environmental Data Partners have been archiving climate datasets our community has prioritized, uploading copies to public repositories and cataloging where and how to find them if they go missing from government websites.
Most federal agencies decreased their use of the phrase ‘climate change’ on websites during the first Trump administration, 2017-2020. Eric Nost, et al., 2021, CC BY
As of Feb. 13, 2025, we hadn’t seen the destruction of climate science records. Many of these data collection programs, such as those at NOAA or EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, are required by Congress. However, the administration had limited or eliminated access to a lot of data.
Maintaining tools for understanding climate change
We’ve seen a targeted effort to systematically remove tools like dashboards that summarize and visualize the social dimensions of climate change. For instance, the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool mapped low-income and other marginalized communities that are expected to experience severe climate changes, such as crop losses and wildfires. The mapping tool was taken offline shortly after Trump’s first set of executive orders.
Most of the original data behind the mapping tool, like the wildfire risk predictions, is still available, but is now harder to find and access. But because the mapping tool was developed as an open-source project, we were able to recreate it.
Preserving websites for the future
In some cases, entire webpages are offline. For instance, the page for the 25-year-old Climate Change Center at the Department of Transportation doesn’t exist anymore. The link just sends visitors back to the department’s homepage.
During Donald Trump’s first week back in office, the Department of Transportation removed its Climate Change Center webpage. Internet Archive Wayback Machine
Fortunately, our partners at the End of Term Web Archive have captured snapshots of millions of government webpages and made them accessible through the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. The group has done this after each administration since 2008.
If you are worried that certain data currently still available might disappear, consult this checklist from MIT Libraries. It provides steps for how you can help safeguard federal data.
Narrowing the knowledge sphere
What’s unclear is how far the administration will push its attempts to remove, block or hide climate data and science, and how successful it will be.
Already, a federal district court judge has ruled that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s removal of access to public health resources that doctors rely on was harmful and arbitrary. These were putback online thanks to that ruling.
We worry that more data and information removals will narrow public understanding of climate change, leaving people, communities and economies unprepared and at greater risk. While data archiving efforts can stem the tide of removals to some extent, there is no replacement for the government research infrastructures that produce and share climate data.
Eric Nost is affiliated with the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative and the Public Environmental Data Partners.
Alejandro Paz is affiliated with the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative.
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown says the deal with China “complements, not replaces” the relationship with New Zealand after signing it yesterday.
Brown said “The Action Plan for Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP) 2025-2030” provides a structured framework for engagement between the Cook Islands and China.
“Our relationship and engagement with China complements, not replaces, our long-standing relationships with New Zealand and our various other bilateral, regional and multilateral partners — in the same way that China, New Zealand and all other states cultivate relations with a wide range of partners,” Brown said in a statement.
The statement said the agreement would be made available “in the coming days” on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Immigration online platforms.
Brown said his government continued to make strategic decisions in the best long-term interests of the country.
He said China had been “steadfast in its support” for the past 28 years.
“It has been respectful of Cook Islands sovereignty and supportive of our sustained and concerted efforts to secure economic resilience for our people amidst our various vulnerabilities and the many global challenges of our time including climate change and access to development finance.”
Priority areas The statement said priority areas of the agreement include trade and investment, tourism, ocean science, aquaculture, agriculture, infrastructure including transport, climate resilience, disaster preparedness, creative industries, technology and innovation, education and scholarships, and people-to-people exchanges.
At the signing was China’s Premier Li Qiang and the minister of Natural Resources Guan Zhi’ou.
On the Cook Islands side, was Prime Minister Mark Brown and Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs and Immigration Tukaka Ama.
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for New Zealand Minister for Foreign Affairs Winston Peters released a statement earlier on Saturday, saying New Zealand would consider the agreements closely, in light of New Zealand and the Cook Islands’ mutual constitutional responsibilities.
“We know that the content of these agreements will be of keen interest to the people of the Cook Islands,” the statement said.
“We note that Prime Minister Mark Brown has publicly committed to publishing the text of the agreements that he agrees in China.
“We are unable to respond until Prime Minister Brown releases them upon his return to the Cook Islands.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This announcement came as the Coalition Cabinet prepared to discuss the matter in Suva next week, reports Fiji One News.
Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka made these remarks during a bilateral meeting with Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister Sa’ar Gideon Moshe on the sidelines of the 61st session of the Munich Security Conference, which opened yesterday in Germany.
The discussions between the two leaders focused on deepening the partnership in various areas of mutual interest, including agriculture, security and peacekeeping, and climate action initiatives.
Prime Minister Rabuka expressed gratitude to the Israeli government for their continued support over the years.
Fiji and Israel have maintained diplomatic relations since 1970, and their cooperation has spanned areas such as security, peacekeeping, and climate change.
In recent years, Israeli technology has played a crucial role in Fiji’s efforts to combat climate change.
Invitation to Rabuka to visit Israel During the meeting, Minister Moshe extended an invitation to Prime Minister Rabuka to visit Israel as part of ongoing efforts to strengthen diplomatic ties.
The Israeli government also expressed readiness to assist Fiji in its plans to establish an embassy in Jerusalem.
Additionally, in response to a request from Prime Minister Rabuka, Minister Moshe offered support for providing patrol boats to enhance Fiji’s fight against illicit drugs.
The last time Israel provided patrol boats to Fiji was in 1987, when four Dabur-class boats were supplied to the Fiji Navy.
Both leaders acknowledged significant opportunities for collaboration and expressed optimism about further strengthening bilateral relations in the future.
Fiji defies UN, global condemnation of Israel Asia Pacific Report comments: Fiji has been consistently the leading Pacific country supporting Israel, in defiance of United Nations resolutions and global condemnation of Tel Aviv in the 15-month war on Gaza that has killed at least 47,000 Palestinians — mostly women and children.
A popular model of evolution concludes that it was incredibly unlikely for humanity to evolve on Earth, and that extraterrestrial intelligence is vanishingly rare.
But as experts on the entangled history of life and our planet, we propose that the coevolution of life and Earth’s surface environment may have unfolded in a way that makes the evolutionary origin of humanlike intelligence a more foreseeable or expected outcome than generally thought.
This view, firmly rooted in biology, independently gained support from physics in 1983 with an influential publication by Brandon Carter, a theoretical physicist.
In 1983, Carter attempted to explain what he called a remarkable coincidence: the close approximation between the estimated lifespan of the Sun – 10 billion years – and the time Earth took to produce humans – 5 billion years, rounding up.
He imagined three possibilities. In one, intelligent life like humans generally arises very quickly on planets, geologically speaking – in perhaps millions of years. In another, it typically arises in about the time it took on Earth. And in the last, he imagined that Earth was lucky – ordinarily it would take much longer, say, trillions of years for such life to form.
Carter rejected the first possibility because life on Earth took so much longer than that. He rejected the second as an unlikely coincidence, since there is no reason the processes that govern the Sun’s lifespan – nuclear fusion – should just happen to have the same timescale as biological evolution.
So Carter landed on the third explanation: that humanlike life generally takes much longer to arise than the time provided by the lifetime of a star.
The Sun will likely be able to keep planets habitable for only part of its lifetime – by the time it hits 10 billion years, it will get too hot. NASA/JPL-Caltech
To explain why humanlike life took so long to arise, Carter proposed that it must depend on extremely unlikely evolutionary steps, and that the Earth is extraordinarily lucky to have taken them all.
He called these evolutionary steps hard steps, and they had two main criteria. One, the hard steps must be required for human existence – meaning if they had not happened, then humans would not be here. Two, the hard steps must have very low probabilities of occurring in the available time, meaning they usually require timescales approaching 10 billion years.
Tracing humans’ evolutionary lineage will bring you back billions of years.
If an evolutionary innovation required for human existence was truly improbable in the available time, then it likely wouldn’t have happened more than once, although it must have happened at least once, since we exist.
For example, the origin of nucleated – or eukaryotic – cells is one of the most popular hard steps scientists have proposed. Since humans are eukaryotes, humanity would not exist if the origin of eukaryotic cells had never happened.
On the universal tree of life, all eukaryotic life falls on exactly one branch. This suggests that eukaryotic cells originated only once, which is consistent with their origin being unlikely.
In the evolutionary tree of life, organisms that have eukaryotic cells are all on the same branch, suggesting this type of cell evolved only once. VectorMine/iStock via Getty Images Plus
The other most popular hard-step candidates – the origin of life, oxygen-producing photosynthesis, multicellular animals and humanlike intelligence – all share the same pattern. They are each constrained to a single branch on the tree of life.
However, as the evolutionary biologist and paleontologist Geerat Vermeij argued, there are other ways to explain why these evolutionary events appear to have happened only once.
This pattern of apparently singular origins could arise from information loss due to extinction and the incompleteness of the fossil record. Perhaps these innovations each evolved more than once, but only one example of each survived to the modern day. Maybe the extinct examples never became fossilized, or paleontologists haven’t recognized them in the fossil record.
Or maybe these innovations did happen only once, but because they could have happened only once. For example, perhaps the first evolutionary lineage to achieve one of these innovations quickly outcompeted other similar organisms from other lineages for resources. Or maybe the first lineage changed the global environment so dramatically that other lineages lost the opportunity to evolve the same innovation. In other words, once the step occurred in one lineage, the chemical or ecological conditions were changed enough that other lineages could not develop in the same way.
If these alternative mechanisms explain the uniqueness of these proposed hard steps, then none of them would actually qualify as hard steps.
But if none of these steps were hard, then why didn’t humanlike intelligence evolve much sooner in the history of life?
Environmental evolution
Geobiologists reconstructing the conditions of the ancient Earth can easily come up with reasons why intelligent life did not evolve sooner in Earth history.
For example, 90% of Earth’s history elapsed before the atmosphere had enough oxygen to support humans. Likewise, up to 50% of Earth’s history elapsed before the atmosphere had enough oxygen to support modern eukaryotic cells.
All of the hard-step candidates have their own environmental requirements. When the Earth formed, these requirements weren’t in place. Instead, they appeared later on, as Earth’s surface environment changed.
We suggest that as the Earth changed physically and chemically over time, its surface conditions allowed for a greater diversity of habitats for life. And these changes operate on geologic timescales – billions of years – explaining why the proposed hard steps evolved when they did, and not much earlier.
In this view, humans originated when they did because the Earth became habitable to humans only relatively recently. Carter had not considered these points in 1983.
Moving forward
But hard steps could still exist. How can scientists test whether they do?
Earth and life scientists could work together to determine when Earth’s surface environment first became supportive of each proposed hard step. Earth scientists could also forecast how much longer Earth will stay habitable for the different kinds of life associated with each proposed hard step – such as humans, animals and eukaryotic cells.
Evolutionary biologists and paleontologists could better constrain how many times each hard-step candidate occurred. If they did occur only once each, they could see whether this came from their innate biological improbability or from environmental factors.
Lastly, astronomers could use data from planets beyond the solar system to figure out how common life-hosting planets are, and how often these planets have hard-step candidates, such as oxygen-producing photosynthesis and intelligent life.
If our view is correct, then the Earth and life have evolved together in a way that is more typical of life-supporting planets – not in the rare and improbable way that the hard-steps model predicts. Humanlike intelligence would then be a more expected outcome of Earth’s evolution, rather than a cosmic fluke.
Researchers from a variety of disciplines, from paleontologists and biologists to astronomers, can work together to learn more about the probability of intelligent life evolving on Earth and elsewhere in the universe.
If the evolution of humanlike life was more probable than the hard-steps model predicts, then researchers are more likely to find evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence in the future.
Daniel Brady Mills receives funding from the German Research Foundation.
Jason Wright works for Penn State University, where his research in the search for life in the universe is supported by internal funds, grants from NASA, and individual philanthropists.
Jennifer L. Macalady works for Penn State University, where her research on how microorganisms, minerals and fluids interact through geologic time is supported by internal funds, grants from NASA and NSF, and grants from private foundations.
I’m a law professor who has written about Congress’ power of the purse and some of the legal and constitutional issues that surround it. Here’s a brief explanation of the concept – and of why you should care about it.
Concretely, Congress may enact laws that raise revenue through taxes and import duties, and it may also spend money for “the common Defence and general Welfare,” terms in the Constitution that are understood to cover almost any spending that Congress thinks is a good idea.
The Constitution, however, provides that “[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Because of this clause, officials may not spend any government money unless a statute “appropriates,” or makes available, specific funds for the relevant purpose.
Although the Constitution forbids any appropriation for the Army that lasts longer than two years, Congress can choose in other contexts whether to provide an appropriation permanently or only for a prescribed length of time. Some benefits programs such as Social Security today have permanent appropriations, but most government agencies receive funds for their operations for just a year at a time.
James Madison, who wrote much of the U.S. Constitution, said Congress’ power of the purse was ‘the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people.’ wynnter-iStock/Getty Images Plus
Leverage over policy and presidents
Why does all of this matter?
Historically, the British Parliament’s control over government funds created a powerful check on the crown, and Parliament developed the practice of annual appropriations to ensure that it would always have leverage over royal policy.
Reflecting this history, James Madison, the fourth president and a leading figure in the Constitutional Convention, wrote in the Federalist Papers that the power of the purse was “the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”
This sort of leverage over policy still matters. American presidents today exercise vast powers. Over time, Congress has conferred extensive regulatory authorities on administrative agencies that operate under the president’s supervision.
Congress has also established a large Army, Navy, and Air Force over which the president is commander in chief. Presidents, moreover, have claimed the power to employ these armed forces in significant ways even without a declaration of war or other specific authorization from Congress.
Congress’ power of the purse gives it a say in how these powers are exercised. If Congress doesn’t like what an administrative agency is doing, it can cut its budget or deny funds for enforcing certain regulations – something it does regularly.
Likewise, Congress can deny funds for certain military operations or impose constraints on military activities – something it also does with some regularity. In the 1970s, Congress helped end the Vietnam War in part by withholding appropriations for military activities in Indochina.
Who’s in charge here?
Annual appropriations also give rise to the frustrating phenomenon of government “shutdowns”: If annual funding runs out before Congress enacts new appropriations, government agencies generally must halt operations.
On the whole, however, annual appropriations continue to serve much the same purpose in the United States that they did in Britain: They provide a potent check on the executive branch.
Given how strong this check is, it may not be surprising that presidents have sought ways to get around it.
President Donald Trump, right, and Elon Musk, left, are cutting congressionally approved government programs and staff – an effort that may be unconstitutional. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Based on debatable legal claims, President Barack Obama continued certain health insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act even after Congress denied appropriations for them. President Joe Biden attempted massive student debt relief without clear authority from Congress. Courts blocked both those actions, but now the new Trump administration has adopted several controversial policies that implicate Congress’ power of the purse.
On the one hand, the administration has apparently offered many federal employees nine months of paid leave if they agree to resign from federal service. But the legal basis for these offers is unclear, and it may be that no current appropriation by Congress provides funds for them.
On the other hand, the administration has attempted to “pause” certain government spending, even though existing appropriations made by Congress may require at least some of this spending.
These actions could violate not only Congress’ constitutional power of the purse but also specific statutes that Congress has enacted to reinforce its constitutional power.
The buyout offers could violate a law called the Anti-Deficiency Act that makes it unlawful, and sometimes criminal, for government officials to commit to spending money without an appropriation providing the necessary funds.
For their part, the pauses could violate a 1974 law called the Impoundment Control Act that generally forbids the government from delaying or withholding spending that Congress has mandated. Courts are now considering challenges to these actions based on these laws and other issues.
Trump may be hoping that Congress will cure any legal problems by ratifying these actions after the fact in its next round of appropriations legislation. But if Trump is indeed defying Congress’ spending laws and yet faces no consequences, his actions could chip away at Congress’ authority to check presidential policies in the future through its spending choices.
James Madison would not have been pleased.
Zachary Price does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Gawthorpe, Lecturer in History and International Studies, Leiden University
When a new US president takes office, his first order of business is usually to reassure America’s allies and warn its enemies. However, Donald Trump is doing things differently. It seems his goal is to strike fear into the heart not of America’s foes, but rather its friends.
American presidents have traditionally seen the country’s network of allies as a “force multiplier” – something that magnifies American power and applies it more effectively. A broad range of allies means trading partners, military bases and diplomatic support in international institutions. According to this line of reasoning, it is in America’s own interests to defend and support its allies – the benefits outweigh the cost.
Trump, by contrast, views allies both as competitors and burdens. He thinks they are too reliant on American military power to defend themselves, and that their economic relationship with the US makes them rich at the expense of American workers. He wants US allies, particularly in Europe, to spend more of their own money on defence and to buy more goods from the US.
He also seems even more willing than in his first term to deploy America’s formidable tools of coercion to make this happen. His widespread threats of tariffs, for instance, are designed to force countries to go along with his wishes, including in non-economic aspects of the relationship. He is also threatening to use economic and military force in alarming ways, such as to seize control of Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal.
The result is a world in which American allies can no longer rely on the US to be a reliable partner. They may increasingly have to fend for themselves against not just their traditional foes, but also a predatory Washington.
Although all US allies are concerned about this turn of events, some are more surprised than others. The biggest shock has come in Europe, which has long occupied a privileged place in America’s strategic thinking.
Europeans knew that a second Trump term was going to be rough. On the campaign trail, for example, he vowed across-the-board tariffs of up to 20%. But they didn’t expect Trump to threaten the territory of Nato members Canada and Denmark, which owns Greenland.
As a result, Europeans’ view of the US has shifted since Trump returned to the White House. According to the results of a recent survey by the European Council on Foreign Relations, the majority of people in Europe no longer see the US as an ally that shares the same interests and values, instead agreeing that it is only a “necessary partner”.
For other US allies and partners, particularly in the global south, this shift is less surprising. Panama owes its existence to an act of US imperialism. The US sent military forces to assist the country in seceding from Colombia in 1903, with the ultimate goal of working with the country’s new government to build the canal.
But Panama has since witnessed numerous American military interventions. Most recently, in December 1989, the then US president, George H.W. Bush, ordered 20,000 US troops to Panama where they toppled the government and arrested the country’s president, Manuel Noriega, on charges of drug trafficking, racketeering and money laundering.
Non-western countries have long been used to the idea that the US will disregard their interests and take advantage of their weakness if policymakers in Washington deem it necessary. What we are witnessing now is the extension of this precariousness to all.
Weakness for flattery
For world leaders looking to navigate this turbulent time, there is an additional problem. Trump has a habit of personalising diplomacy, deciding whom he likes and whom he doesn’t like based on their perceived friendliness to him rather than a more detached calculation of their interests.
He is also a sucker for big, splashy acts of diplomacy. He often gives the impression that his main goal is to be able to sign a deal – any deal – which he can declare to be a victory, rather than giving too much thought to the underlying interests at stake.
This means that smart leaders can flatter and deceive him. In early February, Trump postponed tariffs on Mexico after the country’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, promised to send troops to the US-Mexico border to tackle the cartels trafficking the drug fentanyl in the US.
The only problem is that almost all fentanyl is trafficked by US citizens at legal border crossings, who bring in very small quantities of the drug in their vehicles. According to Raúl Benítez, a military expert at Mexico’s National Autonomous University, the “ant-like traffic of fentanyl” makes control of the trade “almost impossible”.
But the occasional weakness for flattery hardly makes Trump reliable.
Instead, Trump presents US allies with a dangerous and unpredictable force. Like the leaders of Russia and China, Trump seems to view the world as split into spheres of influence in which powerful countries are free to bully their neighbours.
Many countries will conclude that America is just another aggressive great power to be managed, rather than a country that at least pays lip service to international law. Some might even decide they have no choice other than to develop closer relations with Russia and China, and drift out of the US orbit.
One thing is clear: US allies must do more to ensure they can defend their interests independently. Unlike a country such as Panama, European countries have the resources to do this, if only they can summon the will. They should count themselves lucky – and get to work.
Andrew Gawthorpe does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Bridget Jones, the endearingly chaotic heroine who is unlucky in love, is back – but not as many might expect. This is the fourth Bridget Jones film, which adapts the story of the third book in Helen Fielding’s much-loved series (the third film, Bridget Jones’s Baby, was based on the fourth book).
When Bridget Jones’s Diary came out in 2001, our heroine’s low-level eating disorder, neediness and alcohol abuse associated female singlehood with mental instability. In this new instalment, we see an older Bridget with more mature concerns.
The woman we meet in the long opening pre-credit sequence of Mad About The Boy is frazzled, manic and, as we’ve seen Bridget before, given to long bouts on the sofa communing with a bottle of white wine. However, this time she’s not down because love eludes her but because she had a wonderful love and lost it. Our once bubbly singleton has been reconfigured as a subdued widow with two young kids.
Mad About the Boy starts several years after the death of Bridget’s husband Mark Darcy (Colin Firth). While echoes of melancholy endure throughout, once in its stride the film does reestablish the reassuringly comical coordinates of the Jones-verse. At its best, it offers the brilliant one-liners and set pieces to be expected from its star writing team – including Dan Mazer (Ali G, Borat) and Abi Morgan (Shame, The Iron Lady) as well as Fielding herself – served up with a good dose of Bridget Jones’s signature slapstick.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
Embracing the usual trappings of popular feminism, Mad About the Boy champions body positivity and romantic optimism for middle-aged women. It is the latest in a growing genre of story that affords older female characters active sexual identities, including by pairing them up with younger partners. Think of the Sex and the City reboot And Just Like That, the Nicole Kidman corporate kink romance Babygirl or the romcom Good Luck Leo Grande (starring Emma Thompson, who plays a wry gynaecologist in Mad About the Boy).
The most interesting consideration in updating the Jones franchise for the 21st century comes from its interrogation of internet dating practices: a classic source of humour in stories about Generation X rejoining the dating game. This is most memorably mined in the novel and series Fleishman is in Trouble. Watching the trailer you might expect Mad about the Boy to centralise Tinder. But this proves a bluff.
Bridget Jones: Mad About The Boy trailer.
The app leads to the relationship between Bridget and the film’s eponymous “boy”, Roxster, which is initiated in emphatically physical terms when he rescues her from a tree. This scene was full of nods to the famous shot of her backside sliding down a fireman’s pole in the original film. While the connection is consolidated over a dating app, this relationship quickly regains IRL contours as they engage in passionate sex.
In a self-aware gesture towards the franchise’s debt to Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, Bridget brings up the findings of sociological research on dating apps while talking to her friends about why she’s not met anyone IRL yet. Apps, such as Tinder, provide the illusion of a dating life without ever having to engage in the messy business of actually meeting someone, let alone having sex Bridget argues. She backs this up with the research that suggest this removal of intimacy during the courting stage is not dissimilar to the marriage mart in Austen’s Regency England where young, eligible women were essentially “on display” for men.
At the end of the day, Roxster ghosts Bridget and she is left anxiously checking her phone, drinking alone again and obsessing. This, however, is the old Bridget Jones. Even though the boy does eventually come back, Bridget ends up taking the advice from one of her perennially supportive friends to “let him disintegrate into nothingness”. Symbolically rejecting the flakiness that comes with digitising human relationships, Bridget mirrors society’s increasing disenchantment with dating apps.
The idea of spending time on concrete and lasting relationships underpins Daniel Cleaver’s (Hugh Grant) narrative arc too. With no “kin” he can draw on to put down as an emergency contact, his close friendship with Bridget ends up counting all the more.
At the heart of this film is a strong validation of real connection, understood in terms of corporeality, dependability and also emotional intelligence that cannot be reproduced by dating apps and their algorithms. Likewise, it considers the broader climate of romantic and social crisis in today’s culture, as birth rates plummet and more people live alone and suffer from loneliness. Friendship and family, whether blood or chosen, are just as important here as romance.
Zellweger is effervescent and Hugh Grant gives a show-stealing performance as devilish Lothario-with-a-heart Cleaver. It’s great to see old Bridge back and not so mad after all.
Mary Harrod does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been sworn in as the US health and human services secretary, despite saying a few things that raised eyebrows during his confirmation hearing. One of those things was the claim that some people have a harder time coming off antidepressants than they do coming off heroin. He was referring specifically to the current generation of antidepressants called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs.
RFK Jr. is known for saying controversial things about medicine, but is he right on this count?
People trying to come off antidepressants who experience these types of symptom sometimes believe their depression has returned, and will start taking their antidepressant pills again. Differentiating between returning depression and SSRI discontinuation syndrome can be difficult. And it can lead to people continuing to take their antidepressant medication even though they no longer need it.
Evidence suggests that SSRIs with short half-lives (where the drug is rapidly broken down in the body) are more likely to cause discontinuation syndrome. These drugs include paroxetine and fluvoxamine, which cause discontinuation syndrome in about 7% of people. Antidepressants with a long half-life – such as sertraline and fluoxetine – only cause the syndrome in about 2% of people.
Other studies suggest that discontinuation syndrome may be as high as 40% when people stop taking SSRIs abruptly.
The situation is further complicated in that some SSRIs, when broken down by the body, have active metabolites. These metabolites can have similar effects to the SSRI and effectively prolong the half-life of the drug.
So fluoxetine, which has quite a long half-life and an active metabolite, rarely triggers discontinuation syndrome. On the other hand, paroxetine has a short half-life and no active metabolites and is the SSRI most likely to cause withdrawal effects, accounting for about 65% of cases.
The simplest explanation for discontinuation syndrome is that coming off these drugs leads to an abrupt and rapid reduction in serotonin, the neurotransmitter thought to mediate the initial antidepressant effects. This is a gross oversimplification, but appropriate levels of serotonin make you happy and relaxed, while low levels make you sad and anxious.
This serotonin discontinuation theory is supported by studies in rats, although other neurotransmitters are almost certainly involved.
How does this compare to heroin withdrawal?
Heroin activates a protein found in the brain, spinal cord and gastrointestinal tract called the mu opioid receptor. When activated, these receptors reduce the perception of pain by blocking pain signals in the nervous system.
More users of heroin experience a withdrawal syndrome compared to users of SSRIs. Around 85% of opioid users who inject the drug experience severe withdrawal symptoms when they come off it. As with SSRIs, opioid withdrawal syndrome severity depends on how long they have been used for and the half-life of the specific opioid.
The half-life of heroin is very short, which would suggest that it will cause severe withdrawal symptoms. However, heroin produces two active metabolites when it is broken down in the body, 6-MAM and morphine, which, like heroin, activate mu opioid receptors.
But these metabolites do not activate the mu opioid receptor to the same extent as heroin. So in most cases of heroin withdrawal, significant symptoms occur as mu opioid receptors quickly shift from a state of high to low activation, leading to severe effects.
Symptoms include drug craving, anxiety, nausea, diarrhoea, stomach cramps, fever and increased heart rate. These are all caused by changes to opioid receptors in the brain and gut. The gastrointestinal symptoms tend to be shorter lasting, whereas the psychological symptoms, such as anxiety and irritability, can last for years.
Withdrawal from heroin often requires treatment with methadone or buprenorphine, two drugs that activate the mu opioid receptor but which have long half-lives.
Typically, someone trying to come off heroin would go to the pharmacist and get a daily dose of methadone or buprenorphine. This is so-called substitution therapy because the new drug (methadone) substitutes for heroin.
Methadone has many advantages over heroin, including that it is free (no need for criminality to get money for heroin), clean (no need to use potentially dirty needles or potentially contaminated heroin) and less addictive, with reduced side-effects.
Heroin withdrawal is a relatively more common and more serious condition. But individual patients can still have a terrible time coming off SSRIs and a relatively easier time coming off heroin.
How do you come off SSRIs?
To come off SSRIs with minimal chance of a withdrawal syndrome, especially for the short-acting SSRIs, you should taper off the dose. This means that you would take progressively smaller and smaller doses over several weeks or months before coming off completely. Recent medical advice suggests that the tapering should be over a longer period than originally thought, and the final doses should be much lower.
You could also switch from a short-acting SSRI to one with a long half-life like fluoxetine, and then taper off fluoxetine, which should be easier than tapering off paroxetine.
Doctors should also consider “nocebo” effects. Just as doctors can increase placebo effects by being positive about a treatment, they can also increase negative effects (nocebo effects) by focusing on potential side-effects. So if your doctor focuses too much on a potential SSRI withdrawal syndrome, you will be more likely to experience negative effects.
In addition to tapering off SSRIs very slowly, several drugs are available to mitigate the withdrawal effects of SSRIs. These include anxiety-reducing drugs, such as benzodiazepines, and antiemetic drugs, such as ondansetron for nausea.
RFK Jr. has made several debatable statements related to health, including, for example, on vaccinations. On this occasion, though, concerning antidepressants, there is considerable evidence that coming off of SSRIs can be very difficult. But, for most people, it is unlikely that it would be as difficult as coming off heroin.
Colin Davidson has previously received funding from the NIH (USA) and the European Community for projects related to drug abuse. His PhD, on the SSRI paroxetine, was sponsored by GSK. He is currently a consultant on psychoactive substances for the UK Defence Science Technology Labs and is a member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (UK). The views expressed here are his own.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Russell, Lecturer, Faculty of Creative & Cultural Industries, University of Portsmouth
Did you hear? There’s been another murder at a White Lotus hotel, this time the one in Thailand.
Back for its third season, Mike White’s critically acclaimed and Emmy award-winning tragi-comedy series follows the terrible exploits of the White Lotus’s rich, primarily white holidaymakers, alongside the local employees.
There is social satire, a lot of drama and always a death in paradise. In the first season there was death in Hawaii; the second in Sicily, Italy, and now, in the third, there’s death in Koh Samui.
As someone who has researched on screen representations of Thailand I was intrigued to see how the show handled this locale. Disappointingly, the exoticness and beauty of Thailand is foregrounded, as is the mysticism of Buddhism.
The series follows four groups of people, the majority of whom the audience are made to feel repulsed by in some way.
The first is the Ratliff family. There’s father, Timothy (Jason Isaacs) who works in finance and mother, Victoria (Parker Posey), whose anxiety means she is heavily medicated and constantly falling asleep. Then the kids: daughter, Piper (Sarah Catherine Hook) who is studying Buddhism; son Lochlan (Sam Nivola) who has poor posture from being glued to his computer; and Saxon (Patrick Schwarzenegger), the eldest of the three, whose primary focus is having sex.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
The second group is three middle-aged women who are on a “girls’ holiday” who abandon their inhibitions as the series progresses. They are routinely referred to as cougars by Saxon. Then there is odd couple Chelsea (Aimee Lou Wood) and her older partner Rick (Walton Goggins), who seem to be going through a rocky patch.
The one likeable person, Belinda (Natasha Rothwell), is a character previously seen working in the spa in the first season’s Hawaiian resort. She’s in Thailand on a research trip for her own wellbeing business.
Terrible people
As with previous series, the ignorance of the holidaymakers is clear. Thailand is referred to as Taiwan. Piper is told by her mother that she can’t possibly be a Buddhist because she isn’t Chinese. The stereotype of the older, rich, bald white male – referred to here as LBHs (losers back home) – who retires to Thailand with a much younger wife is hammered home in various episodes.
Through these guests’ continued cultural ignorance and insensitivity, the few Thai characters we are introduced to are subservient and constantly smiling, always there to please. There’s never a sense of disgust at the exploits of the rich white customers. They are voiceless and for the most part, absent.
Belinda, the only black character, is also the only one who converses in any meaningful way with a Thai person. The only sort of story that gives any space to Thai characters is about a blossoming love between the security guard Gaitok (Tayme Thapthimthong) and health expert Mook (Lalisa Manoban), but this is sidelined.
There is a clear cultural, economic and racial split presented, one that fails to allow any Thai character the ability to air their criticisms of the guests or to be developed in a meaningful way. In the main, the focus is on whiteness – a criticism previous series have also garnered.
An imaginary Thailand
All these facets together create a version of Thailand that is seen through the lens of orientalism. This is a western way of looking at non-western places as full of mysticism, eroticism and exoticness, where nothing normal occurs.
This lens is foregrounded by characters constantly saying things like: “Thailand is full of people either looking for something or hiding from something”, and “Whatever happens in Thailand, stays in Thailand”.
There is a constant flow of alcohol, and drugs can be procured away from the resort. Incest is even hinted at in the first few episodes as the audience are shown Lochlan gazing upon the naked body of his brother. The country is portrayed as a playground for white debauchery, where anything goes – much like in The Hangover part II (2011), a trope I have written about in my research.
The link to orientalism is further enhanced by the way in which Thai religion is shown as being mystical. Anytime a character engages in a spiritual practice it is accompanied by a tinkling score indicating something otherworldly is occurring. This isn’t limited to Western characters. When Gaitok, makes an offering at a shrine the visuals are presented in slow motion as candlelight flickers with a mythical aura pervading.
The previous seasons have seen a boom in travel to filming locations in Sicily and Hawaii, driven by their onscreen depictions), and this season’s Thailand setting will likely lead to the same.
The landscape is a constant focal point, exemplifying the British sociologist John Urry’s theory of the “tourist gaze”. Exotic portions of the landscape are lingered upon, from the jungle and palm trees to ocean vistas. Monkeys are continuously seen, alongside other “exotic” creatures.
This is a recurring trait seen in Hollywood films set in Thailand, from Anna and the King of Siam (1946) to The Impossible (2012), situating it purely as an exotic locale.
This series uses iconic tourist locations, such as the Buddhist temple Wat Pho which forms the background for a conversation in one scene. Also, what appears to be the Phi Phi Islands, known for their pristine beaches and clear waters, drift past during a luxury yacht trip. Sadly, Thailand in this series is reduced to a digestible set of iconic images for the audience.
White Lotus engages in a double game. The series is clearly critical of the characters, presenting lifestyle and holidays as desirable and aspirational, all the while reinforcing antiquated orientalist stereotypes itself. You would hope a show trying to show the evils of a certain kind of tourism wouldn’t also be guilty of the thing it’s attempting to lampoon.
Andrew Russell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephanie Alice Baker, Reader (Associate Professor) in Sociology, City St George’s, University of London
This article contains spoilers for Apple Cider Vinegar.
The new Netflix series Apple Cider Vinegar tells the story of wellness influencer Belle Gibson, who built a loyal following on social media by documenting her cancer journey online. But in 2015, Gibson was exposed as a fraud. She never had cancer, and lied about donating funds to charities and ill children.
The series documents Gibson’s rise to fame and subsequent downfall, portraying some of the psychological factors that influenced her deceit. But this scandal also illustrates a larger story about the conditions that enable cancer frauds such as Gibson to gain credibility and influence online.
The 2000s were characterised by the “blogging revolution” – a shift in how people produced and consumed information. Blogs enabled content creators to share their lives and experiences publicly, and engage directly with their readers. Niche communities formed around common interests ranging from health to heartbreak.
Gibson capitalised on this trend, creating a blog called The Whole Pantry where she documented her alleged journey battling a rare form of terminal brain cancer. She claimed on her blog to have decided to reject conventional cancer treatments.
Instead, Gibson expressed that she was empowered to heal herself naturally through nutrition, determination and love – as well as alternative medicine including Ayurvedic treatments, craniosacral therapy, oxygen therapy and colonics.
The blog was developed into an app in 2013 and a book in 2014 – with Gibson’s story being legitimised by a reputable publisher and brands, then further fuelled by her social media presence.
Gibson’s primary platform of communication was Instagram. She used the photo-and-video sharing app to build and engage with her followers through inspirational quotes, personal anecdotes and evocative photographs. Lifestyle and wellness influencers typically earn trust and intimacy by presenting themselves as authentic, accessible – and autonomous from state and corporate interests.
A quote from Gibson’s book, also called The Whole Pantry, encapsulates the way she executed this strategy to appeal to online followers. She wrote: “Too many people over-edit themselves. There’s not enough honesty out there. It’s human to feel sick, to ask questions, to search for answers … Never refine yourself in a way which takes away your heart, message and truest self.”
This persona allowed Gibson not only to achieve fame online, but to establish a parasocial relationship with her followers by distancing herself from the medical establishment, appearing relatable and unfiltered in her exchanges with followers.
The mass media has long been recognised as facilitating parasocial relationships: emotional and imaginary bonds that, despite feeling real, tend to be one-dimensional and one-sided. The original parasocial relationships were formed with media figures such as news anchors, radio hosts, and film and pop stars.
Today, content creators on social media are the primary influencers. Although these relationships are typically one-sided, they can still feel intimate and real.
The role of the wellness industry
In the aftermath of the scandal, people searched for who to blame. Fingers were pointed at the press for glamorising Gibson, as well as a publisher and other companies that failed to adequately fact-check Gibson’s claims.
There’s an assumption that wellness is mainly a female pursuit – and the Netflix series follows several female wellness influencers who have built brands around their illness and disease.
There’s an irony that Gibson’s wellness brand went by the Instagram handle “healing_belle”. Part of the success of the wellness industry today is derived from promising miracle cures and remedies for various forms of illness and disease. Many wellness influencers have built successful brands by commodifying health and wellbeing.
This is a far cry from the movement’s origins and the more positive conception of health they sought to establish – which aimed to operate in conjunction with medicine, rather than against it.
Gibson rose to fame in a climate of low institutional trust, where her lived experience was valued over institutional expertise. Similar to many alt-health influencers, her suspicion of conventional medicine resulted in controversial claims about vaccination, and the benefits of Gerson therapy – a regimen that claims to cure cancer through a special diet, supplements and enemas – and raw milk.
It was by documenting the negative side effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy in her book that Gibson was able to present her lifestyle and lived experience as a hopeful alternative path to healing.
After she was convicted of misleading and deceptive conduct in 2017 and ordered by the Federal Court of Australia to pay a fine of AUS$410,000 (£206,000), one might have expected to see a decrease in cancer frauds, given the global publicity this scandal attracted.
Short-form video platforms such as TikTok, Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts have changed the dynamics of fame. Algorithms are central to the user experience on these apps, allowing relatively unknown content creators to gain visibility and attention online.
Whereas Gibson spent years cultivating a following online, today a content creator with only a handful of followers can upload an engaging video and achieve millions of views.
The technologies have changed, but there is an industry of content creators profiting from misleading and harmful advice. The prevalence of cancer misinformation online highlights that the problem runs much deeper than the case of Gibson, as told in Apple Cider Vinegar.
Stephanie Alice Baker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Famine Early Warning Systems Network (Fews Net), a web-based platform for predicting famine, went offline on 30 January 2025. The system had provided up-to-date data to predict and track food insecurity in nearly 30 countries in Africa, central America and Asia for 40 years. It was funded by the US Agency for International Development (USAid). It went offline following USAid’s shutdown by the new US administration.
In Kenya, Fews Net worked with the National Drought Management Agency and the Kenya Food Security Steering Group to develop regular outlook reports at national and county levels. Timothy Njagi Njeru, an agricultural economist who researches food security and emergency responses, explains what Fews Net’s abrupt departure portends for Kenya.
What are the highlights of the network’s work in Kenya?
The famine early warning network provided data and interpretation to shape decisions on food insecurity in Kenya. The Kenyan pages on the web platform – which has gone dark – included:
an outlook for crop production based on climate data and extreme weather events
a standardised measure of food insecurity that helped governments prioritise their responses
a forecast of potential food crises using climate, economic and conflict data.
Fews Net was launched in response to devastating famines in east and west Africa in the mid-1980s. Its main objective was to gather and analyse data to help governments avert food security crises.
This evolved to support other critical areas that affected food security. For example, in the beginning, the network used weather information to generate forecasts on food crises. In time, it also collected price data and trade data, especially on staple commodities, to inform market stabilisation policies. And it tracked climate adaptation strategies.
Its work helped highlight the regions vulnerable to food insecurity, assessed the support these communities got and tracked the effects of weather variability.
In Kenya, the network worked with the Kenya Food Security Steering Group, which is made up of government, multilateral and non-profit agencies. The National Drought Management Authority, Kenya Meteorological Department and Kenya National Bureau of Statistics are in the group. So are the ministries of agriculture, health, water and education, and county governments. Development partners such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Unicef, and civil society organisations, such as the World Food Program and World Vision, are also members.
Their work was published in regular Food and Nutrition Security Assessments.
Fews Net also provided country and county-level briefs. These provided updates on the scale of food insecurity and assistance provided to these regions. They contained forecasts of crop and livestock production. They provided analyses of food trade, price trends, conflict incidences, and performance of assistance programmes. The forecasts helped generate recommendations for specific regions.
All this data was critical for market intelligence and developing value chains. It helped stakeholders make decisions about services, infrastructure support and demand or supply.
What difference has it made?
The Famine Early Warning Systems Network made a huge contribution to Kenya and the region as a whole. The seasonal food security forecasts enabled governments and development partners to respond to crises adequately and in a coordinated manner.
The network’s analytics on price trends and food trade proved very useful in overcoming obstacles to food trade. These included information asymmetry on demand and supply trends. The analytics also highlighted where infrastructural or security challenges might affect the flow of food from surplus to deficit areas. This equipped the government and stakeholders with the information to respond appropriately.
The analytics on household data provided information on household income, food availability and mechanisms to cope with food shocks. This informs government and others about local communities’ capacity to respond to shocks.
The tracking of local market price data informed policy responses, such as livestock offtake programmes at the height of drought or famines. Offtake programmes provide a ready market for families grappling with drought. They enable them to sell their cattle before incurring losses caused by livestock deaths during drought seasons. These programmes help communities enhance their market participation and reduce losses as they are able to sell their livestock at fair prices.
What gaps will its absence create?
The absence of the early warning network will affect Kenya’s ability to address food insecurity. It leaves a gap in financial and technical capacity to generate timely forecasts to inform decision making.
It will take time for other institutions to replace that contribution. In the short run, stakeholders can use the information that’s already been generated. In the medium term, there may be uncertainty and incoherence in interventions and investments.
Because Kenya’s weather has been so variable, the country needs seasonal forecasts at both national and county levels.
What should Kenya do to fill the gap?
Kenya can strengthen the capacity in institutions such as the drought management authority and statistics bureau.
In the long term, the country must increase financial investments that support food security. And it must build technical capacity to produce credible, reliable and timely food security forecasts.
Timothy Njagi Njeru does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
A spontaneous memorial of flowers in St Petersburg, Russia, on the day of Alexei Navalny’s death, February 16 2024.Aleksey Dushutin/Shutterstock
This is the best day of the past five months for me … This is my home … I am not afraid of anything and I urge you not to be afraid of anything either.
These were Alexei Navalny’s words after landing at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport on January 17 2021. Russia’s leading opposition figure had spent the past months recovering in Germany from an attempt on his life by the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB). Minutes after making his comments, Navalny was detained at border control. And he would remain behind bars until his death on February 16 2024, in the remote “Polar Wolf” penal colony within the Arctic Circle.
“Why did he return to Russia?” That’s the question I’m asked about Navalny most frequently. Wasn’t it a mistake to return to certain imprisonment, when he could have maintained his opposition to Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, from abroad?
But Navalny’s decision to return didn’t surprise me. I’ve researched and written about him extensively, including co-authoring Navalny: Putin’s Nemesis, Russia’s Future?, the first English-language, book-length account of his life and political activities. Defying the Kremlin by returning was a signature move, reflecting both his obstinacy and bravery. He wanted to make sure his supporters and activists in Russia did not feel abandoned, risking their lives while he lived a cushy life in exile.
The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.
Besides, Navalny wasn’t returning to certain imprisonment. A close ally of his, Vladimir Ashurkov, told me in May 2022 that his “incarceration in Russia was not a certainty. It was a probability, a scenario – but it wasn’t like he was walking into a certain long-term prison term.”
Also, Navalny hadn’t chosen to leave Russia in the first place. He was unconscious when taken by plane from Omsk to Berlin for treatment following his poisoning with the nerve agent Novichok in August 2020. Navalny had been consistent in saying he was a Russian politician who needed to remain in Russia to be effective.
In a subsequent interview, conducted in a forest on the outskirts of the German capital as he slowly recovered, Navalny said: “In people’s minds, if you leave the country, that means you’ve surrendered.”
Video: ACF.
Outrage, detention and death
Two days after Navalny’s final return to Russia, the Anti-Corruption Foundation (ACF) – the organisation he established in 2011 – published its biggest ever investigation. The YouTube video exploring “Putin’s palace” on the Black Sea coast achieved an extraordinary 100 million views within ten days. By the start of February 2021, polling suggested it had been watched by more than a quarter of all adults in Russia.
Outrage at Navalny’s detention, combined with this Putin investigation, got people on to the streets. On January 23 2021, 160,000 people turned out across Russia in events that did not have prior approval from the authorities. More than 40% of the participants said they were taking part in a protest for the first time.
But the Russian authorities were determined to also make it their last time. Law enforcement mounted an awesome display of strength, detaining protesters and sometimes beating them. The number of participants at protests on January 31 and February 2 declined sharply as a result.
Between Navalny’s return to Russia in January 2021 and his death in February 2024, aged 47, he faced criminal case after criminal case, adding years and years to his time in prison and increasing the severity of his detention. By the time of his death, he was in the harshest type of prison in the Russian penitentiary system – a “special regime” colony – and was frequently sent to a punishment cell.
The obvious intent was to demoralise Navalny, his team and supporters – making an example of him to spread fear among anyone else who might consider mounting a challenge to the Kremlin. But Navalny fought back, as described in his posthumously published memoir, Patriot. He made legal challenges against his jailers. He went on hunger strike. And he formed a union for his fellow prisoners.
He also used his court appearances to make clear his political views, including following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, declaring: “I am against this war. I consider it immoral, fratricidal, and criminal.”
Navalny’s final public appearance was via video link. He was in good spirits, with his trademark optimism and humour still on display. Tongue firmly in cheek, he asked the judge for financial help:
Your Honour, I will send you my personal account number so that you can use your huge salary as a federal judge to ‘warm up’ my personal account, because I am running out of money.
Navalny died the following day. According to the prison authorities, he collapsed after a short walk and lost consciousness. Although the Russian authorities claimed he had died of natural causes, documents published in September 2024 by The Insider – a Russia-focused, Latvia-based independent investigative website – suggest Navalny may have been poisoned.
A mourner adds her tribute to Alexei Navalny’s grave in Moscow after his burial on March 1 2024. Aleksey Dushutin/Shutterstock
Whether or not Putin directly ordered his death, Russia’s president bears responsibility – for leading a system that tried to assassinate Navalny in August 2020, and for allowing his imprisonment following Navalny’s return to Russia in conditions designed to crush him.
Commenting in March 2024, Putin stated that, just days before Navalny’s death, he had agreed for his most vocal opponent to be included in a prisoner swap – on condition the opposition figure never returned to Russia. “But, unfortunately,” Putin added, “what happened, happened.”
‘No one will forget’
Putin is afraid of Alexei, even after he killed him.
Yulia Navalnaya, Navalny’s wife, wrote these words on January 10 2025 after reading a curious letter. His mother, Lyudmila Navalnaya, had written to Rosfinmonitoring – a Russian state body – with a request for her son’s name to be removed from their list of “extremists and terrorists” now he was no longer alive.
The official response was straight from Kafka. Navalny’s name could not be removed as it had been added following the initiation of a criminal case against him. Even though he was dead, Rosfinmonitoring had not been informed about a termination of the case “in accordance with the procedure established by law”, so his name would have to remain.
This appears to be yet another instance of the Russian state exercising cruelty behind the veil of bureaucratic legality – such as when the prison authorities initially refused to release Navalny’s body to his mother after his death.
“Putin is doing this to scare you,” Yulia continued. “He wants you to be afraid to even mention Alexei, and gradually to forget his name. But no one will forget.”
Alexei Navalny and his wife, Yulia Navalnaya, at a protest rally in Moscow, May 2012. Dmitry Laudin/Shutterstock
Today, Navalny’s family and team continue his work outside of Russia – and are fighting to keep his name alive back home. But the odds are against them. Polling suggests the share of Russians who say they know nothing about Navalny or his activities roughly doubled to 30% between his return in January 2021 and his death three years later.
Navalny fought against an autocratic system – and paid the price with his life. Given the very real fears Russians may have of voicing support for a man still labelled an extremist by the Putin regime, it’s not easy to assess what people there really think of him and his legacy. But we will also never know how popular Navalny would have been in the “normal” political system he fought for.
What made Navalny the force he was?
Navalny didn’t mean for the humble yellow rubber duck to become such a potent symbol of resistance.
In March 2017, the ACF published its latest investigation into elite corruption, this time focusing on then-prime minister (and former president), Dmitry Medvedev. Navalny’s team members had become masters of producing slick videos that enabled their message to reach a broad audience. A week after posting, the film had racked up over 7 million views on YouTube – an extraordinary number at that time.
The film included shocking details of Medvedev’s alleged avarice, including yachts and luxury properties. In the centre of a large pond in one of these properties was a duck house, footage of which was captured by the ACF using a drone.
Video: ACF.
Such luxuries jarred with many people’s view of Medvedev as being a bit different to Putin and his cronies. As Navalny wrote in his memoir, Medvedev had previously seemed “harmless and incongruous”. (At the time, Medvedev’s spokeswoman said it was “pointless” to comment on the ACF investigation, suggesting the report was a “propaganda attack from an opposition figure and a convict”.)
But people were angry, and the report triggered mass street protests across Russia. They carried yellow ducks and trainers, a second unintended symbol from the film given Medvedev’s penchant for them.
Another reason why so many people came out to protest on March 26 2017 was the organising work carried out by Navalny’s movement.
The previous December, Navalny had announced his intention to run in the 2018 presidential election. As part of the campaign, he and his team created a network of regional headquarters to bring together supporters and train activists across Russia. Although the authorities had rejected Navalny’s efforts to register an official political party, this regional network functioned in much the same way, gathering like-minded people in support of an electoral candidate. And this infrastructure helped get people out on the streets.
The Kremlin saw this as a clear threat. According to a December 2020 investigation by Bellingcat, CNN, Der Spiegel and The Insider, the FSB assassination squad implicated in the Novichok poisoning of Navalny had started trailing him in January 2017 – one month after he announced his run for the presidency.
At the protests against Medvedev, the authorities’ growing intolerance of Navalny was also on display – he was detained, fined and sentenced to 15 days’ imprisonment.
The Medvedev investigation was far from the beginning of Navalny’s story as a thorn in the Kremlin’s side. But this episode brings together all of the elements that made Navalny the force he was: anti-corruption activism, protest mobilisation, attempts to run as a “normal” politician in a system rigged against him, and savvy use of social media to raise his profile in all of these domains.
Courting controversy
In Patriot, Navalny writes that he always “felt sure a broad coalition was needed to fight Putin”. Yet over the years, his attempts to form that coalition led to some of the most controversial points of his political career.
In a 2007 video, Navalny referred to himself as a “certified nationalist”, advocating for the deportation of illegal immigrants, albeit without using violence and distancing himself from neo-Nazism. In the video, he says: “We have the right to be Russians in Russia, and we’ll defend that right.”
Although alienating some, Navalny was attempting to present a more acceptable face of nationalism, and he hoped to build a bridge between nationalists and liberals in taking on the Kremlin’s burgeoning authoritarianism.
But the prominence of nationalism in Navalny’s political identity varied markedly over time, probably reflecting his shifting estimations of which platform could attract the largest support within Russia. By the time of his thwarted run in the 2018 presidential election, nationalist talking points were all but absent from his rhetoric.
However, some of these former comments and positions continue to influence how people view him. For example, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, Navalny tried to take a pragmatic stance. While acknowledging Russia’s flouting of international law, he said that Crimea was “now part of the Russian Federation” and would “never become part of Ukraine in the foreseeable future”.
Many Ukrainians take this as clear evidence that Navalny was a Russian imperialist. Though he later revised his position, saying Crimea should be returned to Ukraine, some saw this as too little, too late. But others were willing to look past the more controversial parts of his biography, recognising that Navalny represented the most effective domestic challenge to Putin.
Another key attempt to build a broad political coalition was Navalny’s Smart Voting initiative. This was a tactical voting project in which Navalny’s team encouraged voters to back the individual thought best-placed to defeat the ruling United Russia candidate, regardless of the challenger’s ideological position.
The project wasn’t met with universal approval. Some opposition figures and voters baulked at, or flatly refused to consider, the idea of voting for people whose ideological positions they found repugnant – or whom they viewed as being “fake” opposition figures, entirely in bed with the authorities. (This makes clear that Navalny was never the leader of the political opposition in Russia; he was, rather, the leading figure of a fractious constellation of individuals and groups.)
But others relished the opportunity to make rigged elections work in their favour. And there is evidence that Smart Voting did sometimes work, including in the September 2020 regional and local elections, for which Navalny had been campaigning when he was poisoned with Novichok.
In an astonishing moment captured on film during his recovery in Germany, Navalny speaks to an alleged member of the FSB squad sent to kill him. Pretending to be the aide to a senior FSB official, Navalny finds out that the nerve agent had been placed in his underpants.
How do Russians feel about Navalny now?
It’s like a member of the family has died.
This is what one Russian friend told me after hearing of Navalny’s death a year ago. Soon afterwards, the Levada Center – an independent Russian polling organisation – conducted a nationally representative survey to gauge the public’s reaction to the news.
The poll found that Navalny’s death was the second-most mentioned event by Russian people that month, after the capture of the Ukrainian city of Avdiivka by Russian troops. But when asked how they felt about his death, 69% of respondents said they had “no particular feelings” either way – while only 17% said they felt “sympathy” or “pity”.
And that broadly fits with Navalny’s approval ratings in Russia. After his poisoning in 2020, 20% of Russians said they approved of his activities – but this was down to 11% by February 2024.
Video: BBC.
Of course, these numbers must be taken for what they are: polling in an authoritarian state regarding a figure vilified and imprisoned by the regime, during a time of war and amid draconian restrictions on free speech. To what extent the drop in support for Navalny was real, rather than reflecting the increased fear people had in voicing their approval for an anti-regime figure, is hard to say with certainty.
When asked why they liked Navalny, 31% of those who approved of his activities said he spoke “the truth”, “honestly” or “directly”. For those who did not approve of his activities, 22% said he was “paid by the west”, “represented” the west’s interests, that he was a “foreign agent”, a “traitor” or a “puppet”.
The Kremlin had long tried to discredit Navalny as a western-backed traitor. After Navalny’s 2020 poisoning, Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that “experts from the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency are working with him”. The Russian state claimed that, rather than a patriot exposing official malfeasance with a view to strengthening his country, Navalny was a CIA stooge intent on destroying Russia.
Peskov provided no evidence to back up this claim – and the official propaganda wasn’t believed by all. Thousands of Russians defied the authorities by coming out to pay their respects at Navalny’s funeral on March 1 2024. Many, if not all, knew this was a significant risk. Police employed video footage to track down members of the funeral crowd, including by using facial recognition technology.
The first person to be detained was a Muscovite the police claimed they heard shouting “Glory to the heroes!” – a traditional Ukrainian response to the declaration “Glory to Ukraine!”, but this time referencing Navalny. She spent a night in a police station before being fined for “displaying a banned symbol”.
Putin always avoided mentioning Navalny’s name in public while he was alive – instead referring to him as “this gentleman”, “the character you mentioned”, or the “Berlin patient”. (The only recorded instance of Putin using Navalny’s name in public when he was alive was in 2013.)
However, having been re-elected president in 2024 and with Navalny dead, Putin finally broke his long-held practice, saying: “As for Navalny, yes he passed away – this is always a sad event.” It was as if the death of his nemesis diminished the potency of his name – and the challenge that Navalny had long presented to Putin.
Nobody can become another Navalny
Someone else will rise up and take my place. I haven’t done anything unique or difficult. Anyone could do what I’ve done.
So wrote Navalny in the memoir published after his death. But that hasn’t happened: no Navalny 2.0 has yet emerged. And it’s no real surprise. The Kremlin has taken clear steps to ensure nobody can become another Navalny within Russia.
In 2021, the authorities made a clear decision to destroy Navalny’s organisations within Russia, including the ACF and his regional network. Without the organisational infrastructure and legal ability to function in Russia, no figure has been able to take his place directly.
More broadly, the fate of Navalny and his movement has had a chilling effect on the opposition landscape. So too have other steps taken by the authorities.
Russia has become markedly more repressive since the start of its war on Ukraine. The human rights NGO First Department looked into the number of cases relating to “treason”, “espionage” and “confidential cooperation with a foreign state” since Russia introduced the current version of its criminal code in 1997. Of the more than 1,000 cases, 792 – the vast majority – were initiated following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Russian law enforcement has also used nebulous anti-extremism and anti-terrorism legislation to crack down on dissenting voices. Three of Navalny’s lawyers were sentenced in January 2025 for participating in an “extremist organisation”, as the ACF was designated by a Moscow court in June 2021. The Russian legislature has also passed a barrage of legislation relating to so-called “foreign agents”, to tarnish the work of those the regime regards as foreign-backed “fifth columnists”.
Mass street protests are largely a thing of the past in Russia. Restrictions were placed on public gatherings during the COVID pandemic – but these rules were applied selectively, with opposition individuals and groups being targeted. And opportunities for collective action were further reduced following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Freedom of speech has also come under assault. Article 29, point five of the Russian constitution states: “Censorship shall be prohibited.” But in September 2024, Kremlin spokesperson Peskov said: “In the state of war that we are in, restrictions are justified, and censorship is justified.”
Legislation passed very soon after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine made it illegal to comment on the Russian military’s activities truthfully – and even to call the war a war.
YouTube – the platform so central to Navalny’s ability to spread his message – has been targeted. Without banning it outright – perhaps afraid of the public backlash this might cause – the Russian state media regulator, Roskomnadzor, has slowed down internet traffic to the site within Russia. The result has been a move of users to other websites supporting video content, including VKontakte – a Russian social media platform.
In short, conditions in Russia are very different now compared to when Navalny first emerged. The relative freedom of the 2000s and 2010s gave him the space to challenge the corruption and authoritarianism of an evolving system headed by Putin. But this space has shrunk over time, to the point where no room remains for a figure like him within Russia.
In 2019, Navalny told Ivan Zhdanov, who is now director of the ACF: “We changed the regime, but not in the way we wanted.” So, did Navalny and his team push the Kremlin to become more authoritarian – making it not only intolerant of him but also any possible successor?
There may be some truth in this. And yet, the drastic steps taken by the regime following the start of the war on Ukraine suggest there were other, even more significant factors that have laid bare the violent nature of Putin’s personal autocracy – and the president’s disdain for dissenters.
Plenty for Russians to be angry about
How can we win the war when dedushka [grandpa] is a moron?
In June 2023, Evgeny Prigozhin – a long-time associate of Putin and head of the private military Wagner Group – staged an armed rebellion, marching his forces on the Russian capital. This was not a full-blown political movement against Putin. But the target of Prigozhin’s invective against Russia’s military leadership had become increasingly blurry, testing the taboo of direct criticism of the president – who is sometimes referred to, disparagingly, as “grandpa” in Russia.
And Prigozhin paid the price. In August 2023, he was killed when the private jet he was flying in crashed after an explosion on board. Afterwards, Putin referred to Prigozhin as a “talented person” who “made serious mistakes in life”.
In the west, opposition to the Kremlin is often associated with more liberal figures like Navalny. Yet the most consequential domestic challenge to Putin’s rule came from a very different part of the ideological spectrum – a figure in Prigozhin leading a segment of Russian society that wanted the Kremlin to prosecute its war on Ukraine even more aggressively.
Video: BBC.
Today, there is plenty for Russians to be angry about, and Putin knows it. He recently acknowledged an “overheating of the economy”. This has resulted in high inflation, in part due to all the resources being channelled into supporting the war effort. Such cost-of-living concerns weigh more heavily than the war on the minds of most Russians.
A favourite talking point of the Kremlin is how Putin imposed order in Russia following the “wild 1990s” – characterised by economic turbulence and symbolised by then-president Boris Yeltsin’s public drunkenness. Many Russians attribute the stability and rise in living standards they experienced in the 2000s with Putin’s rule – and thank him for it by providing support for his continued leadership.
The current economic problems are an acute worry for the Kremlin because they jeopardise this basic social contract struck with the Russian people. In fact, one way the Kremlin tried to discredit Navalny was by comparing him with Yeltsin, suggesting he posed the same threats as a failed reformer. In his memoir, Navalny concedes that “few things get under my skin more”.
Although originally a fan of Yeltsin, Navalny became an ardent critic. His argument was that Yeltsin and those around him squandered the opportunity to make Russia a “normal” European country.
Navalny also wanted Russians to feel entitled to more. Rather than be content with their relative living standards compared with the early post-Soviet period, he encouraged them to imagine the level of wealth citizens could enjoy based on Russia’s extraordinary resources – but with the rule of law, less corruption, and real democratic processes.
‘Think of other possible Russias’
When looking at forms of criticism and dissent in Russia today, we need to distinguish between anti-war, anti-government, and anti-Putin activities.
Despite the risk of harsh consequences, there are daily forms of anti-war resistance, including arson attacks on military enlistment offices. Some are orchestrated from Ukraine, with Russians blackmailed into acting. But other cases are likely to be forms of domestic resistance.
Criticism of the government is still sometimes possible, largely because Russia has a “dual executive” system, consisting of a prime minister and presidency. This allows the much more powerful presidency to deflect blame to the government when things go wrong.
There are nominal opposition parties in Russia – sometimes referred to as the “systemic opposition”, because they are loyal to the Kremlin and therefore tolerated by the system. Within the State Duma, these parties often criticise particular government ministries for apparent failings. But they rarely, if ever, now dare criticise Putin directly.
Nothing anywhere close to the challenge presented by Navalny appears on the horizon in Russia – at either end of the political spectrum. But the presence of clear popular grievances, and the existence of organisations (albeit not Navalny’s) that could channel this anger should the Kremlin’s grip loosen, mean we cannot write off all opposition in Russia.
Navalny’s wife, Yulia, has vowed to continue her husband’s work. And his team in exile maintain focus on elite corruption in Russia, now from their base in Vilnius, Lithuania. The ACF’s most recent investigation is on Igor Sechin, CEO of the oil company Rosneft.
But some have argued this work is no longer as relevant as it was. Sam Greene, professor in Russian politics at King’s College London, captured this doubt in a recent Substack post:
[T]here is a palpable sense that these sorts of investigations may not be relevant to as many people as they used to be, given everything that has transpired since the mid-2010s, when they were the bread and butter of the Anti-Corruption Foundation. Some … have gone as far as to suggest that they have become effectively meaningless … and thus that Team Navalny should move on.
Navalny’s team are understandably irritated by suggestions they’re no longer as effective as they once were. But it’s important to note that this criticism has often been sharpest within Russia’s liberal opposition. The ACF has been rocked, for example, by recent accusations from Maxim Katz, one such liberal opposition figure, that the organisation helped “launder the reputations” of two former bank owners. In their response, posted on YouTube, the ACF referred to Katz’s accusations as “lies” – but this continued squabbling has left some Russians feeling “disillusioned and unrepresented”.
So, what will Navalny’s long-term legacy be? Patriot includes a revealing section on Mikhail Gorbachev – the last leader of the Soviet Union, whom Navalny describes as “unpopular in Russia, and also in our family”. He continues:
Usually, when you tell foreigners this, they are very surprised, because Gorbachev is thought of as the person who gave Eastern Europe back its freedom and thanks to whom Germany was reunited. Of course, that is true … but within Russia and the USSR he was not particularly liked.
At the moment, there is a similar split in perceptions of Navalny. Internationally, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded the Sakharov Prize by the European Parliament, and a documentary about him won an Oscar.
But there are also those outside of Russia who remain critical: “Navalny’s life has brought no benefit to the Ukrainian victory; instead, he has caused considerable harm,” wrote one Ukrainian academic. “He fuelled the illusion in the west that democracy in Russia is possible.”
Trailer for the Oscar-winning documentary Navalny.
Inside Russia, according to Levada Center polling shortly after his death, 53% of Russians thought Navalny played “no special role” in the history of the country, while 19% said he played a “rather negative” role. Revealingly, when commenting on Navalny’s death, one man in Moscow told RFE/RL’s Russian Service: “I think that everyone who is against Russia is guilty, even if they are right.”
But, for a small minority in Russia, Navalny will go down as a messiah-like figure who miraculously cheated death in 2020, then made the ultimate sacrifice in his battle of good and evil with the Kremlin. This view may have been reinforced by Navalny’s increasing openness about his Christian faith.
Ultimately, Navalny’s long-term status in Russia will depend on the nature of the political system after Putin has gone. Since it seems likely that authoritarianism will outlast Putin, a more favourable official story about Navalny is unlikely to emerge any time soon. However, how any post-Putin regime tries to make sense of Navalny’s legacy will tell us a lot about that regime.
While he was alive, Navalny stood for the freer Russia in which he had emerged as a leading opposition figure – and also what he called the “Beautiful Russia of the Future”. Perhaps, after his death, his lasting legacy in Russia remains the ability for some to think – if only in private – of other possible Russias.
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
Ben Noble has previously received funding from the British Academy and the Leverhulme Trust. He is an Associate Fellow of Chatham House.
“It is so beautiful to see a movie that is cinema,” gushed Mexican director Guillermo del Toro. Another Mexican filmmaker, Issa López, who directed “True Detective: Night Country,” called it a “masterpiece,” adding that Audiard portrayed issues of gender and violence in Latin America “better than any Mexican facing this issue at this time.”
The film is a musical about a Mexican drug lord named Manitas del Monte, played by trans actress Karla Sofía Gascón. Del Monte hires a lawyer to facilitate her long-awaited gender transition. After her surgery, she fakes her death with her lawyer’s help and sends her wife, Jessi, played by Selena Gómez, and their children to Switzerland. Four years later, Manitas – now known as Emilia Pérez – tries to reunite with her family by posing as Manitas’ distant cousin.
So why is it bombing among Mexican moviegoers?
Modest research into a ‘modest’ language
As a scholar of gender and sexuality in Latin America, I study LGBTQ+ representation in media, particularly in Mexico. So it’s been interesting to follow the negative reaction to a film that critics claim has broken new ground in exploring themes of gender, sexuality and violence in Mexico.
Many of the film’s perceived errors seem self-inflicted.
Audiard admitted that he didn’t do much research on Mexico before and during the filming process. And even though he doesn’t speak Spanish, he chose to use a Spanish script and film the movie in Spanish.
The director told French media outlet Konbini that he chose to make the film in Spanish because it is a language “of modest countries, developing countries, of poor people and migrants.”
Not surprisingly, an early critique of the film centered on its Spanish: It uses some Mexican slang words, but they’re spoken in ways that sound unnatural to native speakers. Then there’s the film’s overreliance on clichés that border on racism, perhaps most egregiously when Emilia’s child sings that she smells of “mezcal and guacamole.”
Of course, an artist need not belong to a culture in order to depict or explore it in their work. Filmmakers like Sergei Eisenstein and Luis Buñuel became renowned figures in Mexican cinema despite being born in Latvia and Spain, respectively.
When choosing to explore sensitive topics, however, it is important to take into account the perspective of those being portrayed, both for accuracy’s sake and as a form of respect. Take Martin Scorsese’s “Killers of the Flower Moon.” The director collaborated with members of the Osage nation to further the film’s historical and cultural accuracy.
Glossing over the nuance
“Emilia Pérez” centers on how violence stems from the corruption prevalent in Mexico. Multiple musical numbers denounce the collusion between authorities and criminals.
This is certainly true. But to many Mexicans, it feels like an oversimplification of the issue.
The film fails to acknowledge the confluence of factors behind the country’s violence, such as U.S. demand for illegal drugs stemming from its opioid crisis, or the role that American guns play in Mexico’s violence.
Professor and journalist Oswaldo Zavala, who has written extensively about Mexican cartels, argues that the film perpetuates the idea that Latin American countries are solely to blame for the violence of drug trafficking. Furthermore, Zavala contends that this perspective reinforces the narrative that the U.S.-Mexico border needs to be militarized.
The musical features few male characters; the ones who do appear are invariably violent, and this includes Manitas before undergoing their transition. The cruelty of Manitas contrasts with Emilia’s kindness: She helps the “madres buscadoras,” which are the Mexican collectives made up of mothers searching for missing loved ones presumed to be kidnapped or killed by organized crime. One of these collectives, Colectivo de Víctimas del 10 de Marzo, criticized the film for depicting groups like theirs as recipients of money from organized crime and beneficiaries of luxurious galas attended by politicians and celebrities.
Members of the Madres Buscadoras de Sonora search for the remains of missing persons on the outskirts of Hermosillo, a city in northwestern Mexico, in 2021. Alfred Estrella/AFP via Getty Images
Backlash on multiple fronts
These political and cultural blind spots have spurred a backlash among Mexican moviegoers.
When the movie premiered in Mexico in January 2025, it bombed at the box office, with some viewers demanding refunds. Mexico’s Federal Consumer Protection Agency had to intervene after the movie chain Cinépolis refused to honor its satisfaction-guarantee policy.
Trans content creator Camila Aurora playfully parodied “Emilia Pérez” in her short film “Johanne Sacrebleu.” In scenes filled with stereotypical French symbols such as croissants and berets, it tells the story of an heiress who falls in love with a member of her family’s business rivals.
While some viewers have nonetheless praised “Emilia Pérez” for its nuanced portrayal of trans women and the casting of a trans actress, the LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD described it as “a step backward for trans representation.”
One point of contention is the musical number Emilia sings, “medio ella, medio él,” or “half she, half he,” which insinuates that trans people are stuck between two genders. The movie also seems to portray the character’s transition as a tool for deception.
A social media viper pit
Meanwhile, Gascón’s historic nominations as the first trans actress recognized by the Oscars and other awards have been overshadowed by her controversial statements.
She made headlines when she accused associates of Brazilian actress Fernanda Torres of disparaging her work. Torres is also an Oscar nominee for best actress.
The latest controversy began in late January 2025 when Gascón’s old social media posts resurfaced. The now-deleted messages included attacks on Muslims in Spain and a post calling co-star Selena Gómez a “rich rat,” which Gascón has denied writing.
“Emilia Pérez” is limping into the Oscars. Netflix and Audiard have distanced themselves from Gascón to try to preserve the film’s prospects at the annual Academy Awards ceremony.
It could be too little too late.
Alejandra Marquez Guajardo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
When nonprofits use multiple strategies during their online fundraising campaigns, such as thanking donors for their support, telling the public about their missions and conveying how they are helping people, they receive more donations than if they stick to only one kind of post.
We figured this out after analyzing data from 752 nonprofits that participated in Omaha Gives, an online 24-hour fundraising event in 2015 and 2020. While reviewing the Facebook posts shared during those events, which have since been discontinued, we saw that these appeals fell into six categories:
Beneficiaries: Explaining how the group helps people.
Goals: Encouraging donors to help reach a fundraising goal.
Gratitude: Thanking donors for their gifts.
Mission: Focusing on how the organization helps people.
Social media engagement: Asking donors to share the post or change their profile picture to boost the campaign.
Solicitation: Asking for donations.
We also considered the size of the nonprofits’ budgets, what they do, how long they’ve been operating, their prior experience in online fundraising, the total number of likes their Facebook profiles have garnered, the number of posts they made during the fundraising events, and how many times these posts were shared. The impact of having a mix of fundraising messages was consistent regardless of these other factors.
In addition to determining that using different types of messaging works best, we found that when nonprofits frequently share messages of gratitude or that highlight progress toward their goals, they tend to raise more money than if they just ask for donations.
Taking the strategy our study supports – making different kinds of posts – could help nonprofits beyond simply getting more donations. We suspect that it may also reduce donor fatigue. That is, it could make it less likely that donors will become so overwhelmed by the repetition of the same requests that they stop supporting a group they used to fund.
Online giving has grown in importance in recent years. It amounted to an estimated 12% of all nonprofit fundraising in 2023, the most recent year for which data is available. Social media campaigns are an important part of online fundraising strategies, even though nonprofits still raise much more money through email.
What still isn’t known
It’s unclear how much of what we found is specific to Facebook. Had we examined fundraising data from other social media platforms, the results might have been different. We also didn’t assess the nonprofits’ other fundraising activities, such as how engaged their board members were in these campaigns, or the extent of their other strategies, such as direct mail.
We aim to conduct a future study that will look at both offline and online fundraising efforts to isolate the impact of social media posts on fundraising.
The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.
Abhishek Bhati does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Last time you scrolled the “For You” page on TikTok, did you get a video about current events? Politics? Breaking news?
If you’re one of the 63% of teens or 33% of adults in the U.S. who uses TikTok, you probably have. But where did it come from? Who created it? And should you believe what it told you?
As a communication researcher who has studied news content on social media for over a decade, I can share three crucial things to know about news you get on TikTok: What videos count as news, how they got to you, and what you should do when you see them.
These are three of what media researchers know as the “5 C’s” of news literacy: content, circulation and consumption. While they can be applied to any kind of news use, they are especially important for TikTok, where anyone can create content, and the algorithm decides what we see.
First C: Content
TikTok is full of user-generated content – content that is created by other users on the app rather than official news organizations – so it’s important to think about what is in your feed. This means knowing what is actually news and what is something else, like opinion or advertising.
Any user can post their opinion, whether or not it’s backed up by any proof. TikTok has some rules about what cannot be posted, such as content that is considered inappropriate for minors or harmful content like harassment or hate speech. Still, anyone can post their own ideas about anything, including current events. This means that just because a video is on the app doesn’t make it true.
TikTok has become a major player in advertising, with ad revenues in the U.S. alone expected to reach over US$13 billion in 2026. TikTok does its best to make videos that have been boosted with paid advertising look like any other content. You may have seen videos that seem like “real” content – uncompensated thoughts from an individual user – only to discover that they’re part of a paid brand partnership.
However, the platform does have rules about ads and gives some clues for identifying paid posts. Look for a “sponsored” or “ad” label near the video’s caption or username. Another thing to look for is what’s called a “call-to-action” in the caption, like “tap the link to learn more!”
TikTok doesn’t have specific rules for sharing news, and it doesn’t separate news from other categories of information, like opinion, comedy or video blogs. Journalists at reputable news outlets, on the other hand, must follow certain standards.
For one, journalists will vet and cite their sources. That means they will share who they interviewed or what expert gave them their information, and that they’ve done research to make sure it’s a trustworthy source in the first place. They and their publication’s editors will also verify or fact-check content to make sure it’s true. So a video that shares news content should state where the information is from and link to that source.
On TikTok, you can click on “Share” and then “Why this video” to learn more about why a video was recommended for you. Usually, it’s because you’ve watched, liked or commented on similar content, searched for related topics or followed similar accounts. Recommendations also include videos that were posted recently near you and topics that are popular where you live.
The most important thing to remember is that each TikTok user is getting their own customized feed of content based on their behavior. Unlike in the past, when more of our news came from mainstream media – such as reading the same city newspaper or watching the same local news – now we may not know what news someone else is getting. If you see a lot of content about the same topic, that’s likely because of the algorithm customizing your feed, not necessarily because it’s the most important topic in the news.
You probably know about “fake news” – what researchers usually call misinformation – and that there is a lot of it online. Social media apps know it too, and have tried different ways to keep it from spreading, like using fact-checkers to flag problematic content.
That means, beyond the clues you already read about above, you will need to develop your own skills in judging what’s real on TikTok.
First, think about your own opinions and biases. We all have them! Even news organizations can have biases, meaning some of them tend to report news from a certain political viewpoint.
Second, pay attention to where you get information. Is all your news coming from social media? Research shows that Americans who rely on social media as their main source of news are less knowledgeable than those who get news from almost any other news source. In a 2020 study, they couldn’t answer as many questions about current events like Donald Trump’s impeachment and the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, and were more likely to come across conspiracy theories. Pick a news website or two and sign up for their alerts instead.
Finally, continue to evaluate the content on your “For You” page. You don’t need to stop using TikTok, but do keep looking for those clues about whether information is credible: Who is it from? Is it a journalist, a news organization? Or maybe it was a news influencer, someone who has a large following on social media for sharing current events but who is not necessarily a journalist. Do they cite and link to sources?
If you can’t find this information, you should search about the topic online. If you don’t find any reputable news organizations reporting on it, you may want to think again about trusting it and sharing it.
Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Government scientists at NOAA collect and provide crucial public information about coastal conditions that businesses, individuals and other scientists rely on.NOAA’s National Ocean Service
Information on the internet might seem like it’s there forever, but it’s only as permanent as people choose to make it.
That’s apparent as the second Trump administration “floods the zone” with efforts to dismantle science agencies and the data and websites they use to communicate with the public. The targets range from public health and demographics to climate science.
We are a research librarian and policy scholar who belong to a network called the Public Environmental Data Partners, a coalition of nonprofits, archivists and researchers who rely on federal data in our analysis, advocacy and litigation and are working to ensure that data remains available to the public.
In just the first three weeks of Trump’s term, we saw agencies remove access to at least a dozen climate and environmental justice analysis tools. The new administration also scrubbed the phrase “climate change” from government websites, as well as terms like “resilience.”
Here’s why and how Public Environmental Data Partners and others are making sure that the climate science the public depends on is available forever:
Why government websites and data matter
The internet and the availability of data are necessary for innovation, research and daily life.
If the data and tools used to understand complex data are abruptly taken off the internet, the work of scientists, civil society organizations and government officials themselves can grind to a halt. The generation of scientific data and analysis by government scientists is also crucial. Many state governments run environmental protection and public health programs that depend on science and data collected by federal agencies.
Removing information from government websites also makes it harder for the public to effectively participate in key processes of democracy, including changes to regulations. When an agency proposes to repeal a rule, for example, it is required to solicit comments from the public, who often depend on government websites to find information relevant to the rule.
And when web resources are altered or taken offline, it breeds mistrust in both government and science. Government agencies have collected climate data, conducted complex analyses, provided funding and hosted data in a publicly accessible manner for years. People around the word understand climate change in large part because of U.S. federal data. Removing it deprives everyone of important information about their world.
The second Trump administration seems different, with more rapid and pervasive removal of information.
In response, groups involved in Public Environmental Data Partners have been archiving climate datasets our community has prioritized, uploading copies to public repositories and cataloging where and how to find them if they go missing from government websites.
Most federal agencies decreased their use of the phrase ‘climate change’ on websites during the first Trump administration, 2017-2020. Eric Nost, et al., 2021, CC BY
As of Feb. 13, 2025, we hadn’t seen the destruction of climate science records. Many of these data collection programs, such as those at NOAA or EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, are required by Congress. However, the administration had limited or eliminated access to a lot of data.
Maintaining tools for understanding climate change
We’ve seen a targeted effort to systematically remove tools like dashboards that summarize and visualize the social dimensions of climate change. For instance, the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool mapped low-income and other marginalized communities that are expected to experience severe climate changes, such as crop losses and wildfires. The mapping tool was taken offline shortly after Trump’s first set of executive orders.
Most of the original data behind the mapping tool, like the wildfire risk predictions, is still available, but is now harder to find and access. But because the mapping tool was developed as an open-source project, we were able to recreate it.
Preserving websites for the future
In some cases, entire webpages are offline. For instance, the page for the 25-year-old Climate Change Center at the Department of Transportation doesn’t exist anymore. The link just sends visitors back to the department’s homepage.
During Donald Trump’s first week back in office, the Department of Transportation removed its Climate Change Center webpage. Internet Archive Wayback Machine
Fortunately, our partners at the End of Term Web Archive have captured snapshots of millions of government webpages and made them accessible through the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. The group has done this after each administration since 2008.
If you are worried that certain data currently still available might disappear, consult this checklist from MIT Libraries. It provides steps for how you can help safeguard federal data.
Narrowing the knowledge sphere
What’s unclear is how far the administration will push its attempts to remove, block or hide climate data and science, and how successful it will be.
Already, a federal district court judge has ruled that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s removal of access to public health resources that doctors rely on was harmful and arbitrary. These were putback online thanks to that ruling.
We worry that more data and information removals will narrow public understanding of climate change, leaving people, communities and economies unprepared and at greater risk. While data archiving efforts can stem the tide of removals to some extent, there is no replacement for the government research infrastructures that produce and share climate data.
Eric Nost is affiliated with the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative and the Public Environmental Data Partners, which have received funding for some of the work reviewed in this piece from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Sustainable Cities Fund, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
Alejandro Paz is affiliated with the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative.
